~ The psychology of horror

Is obesity genetic?

Identical twin studies show that obesity has a heritability of almost 80%. Although I generally lean towards nature in most nature-nurture debates, I’ve always had a problem with the idea that obesity is highly genetic, and thus enjoyed this epic rant by blogger Robert Lindsay:

It is 80% genetic[?]

That is why you have whole tribes in South America where not one person has ever been fat.

That is why you have whole towns in Melanesia with 1000’s of people where not one person is fat.

There are fat people in the cities of Solomon Islands. In the study I read, the only man who was fat was one who had gone off to the city for a while and ate salt and processed, packaged food. Do you realize that if you did a genetic study of the fatties in Melanesia, you would find that wonderful 80% “genetic” link you guys are shouting about?

That is why the fatness and obesity rate has exploded in the US and much of the rest of the world. Because it’s 80% genetic!

I do not believe that fatsos act just like the rest of us. Ever known a blimp who ate like a bird? Me either.

I dunno about you, but I have never seen a fat person who wasn’t stuffing their face all the time with lousy food. They are always in restaurants. Always going out to eat. If you go to a restaurant, look around at all the fat people. Those people are fat because fat people like to eat out all the time and restaurant food is fattening. Fat people love to eat. Have you ever noticed that?

This was Robert Lindsay at his best. Although he might not know the technical details of what 80% heritability means, his natural high IQ just shines right through in the form of common sense.

In fact just the other day, I was at the home of someone who was so incredibly fat I thought “it must be genetic.” And then just as I was leaving his house, I noticed a huge empty box of pizza in the kitchen.

Now I have no doubt that if that person has an identical twin raised apart, he too is extremely fat, and thus fatness technically has a high heritability, but what exactly is genetic here? The fatness itself or the tendency to engage in behaviors that cause fatness such as ordering large pizzas? So while obesity might technically be nearly 80% genetic, the statistic is misleading because it’s not directly genetic in the same was as height is.

It is interesting to ask (and commenter Mugabe/Videla has alluded to this) whether the high heritability of IQ is qualitatively more like height (directly genetic) or like weight (largely indirectly genetic). If I had to guess I would say that the heritability of fluid IQ is more like height, while the heritability of crystallized IQ is more like weight, but that’s just my opinion.

Of course I don’t deny obesity has some direct genetic component. Some people gain weight a lot easier than others and for some people, it’s virtually impossible to lose weight no matter how well they eat, though this is rare.

It’s also true that most people who lose weight end up gaining it back, but that’s because they end up returning to their compulsive eating habits.

I won’t take part in the conversation but I just want to make clear about a confusion that Robert Lindsay and HBDers often make.

Malnutrition is not undernutrition.

Malnutrition can lead to obesity, malnutrition in the developped world is eating a lot of junk food. In the third world, malnutrition is eating always the same poor staple food.

Undernutrition (starvation) has become less common, even in the third world. It only happens whith bad havrests or increases in imported food prices.

However, both have terrific effects on health and developpment.

One thing I don’t understand with you guys is you always say “IQ” predicts life outcomes. But have you ever thought that life outcomes could predict “IQ”. I mean, many things in our lives happen against our will, even the smartest persons are not able to get exactly what they want from life… Just to say.

Maybe some traits which are not fixed or more strongly selected can be passed by intergenerational accumulation mutation validating partially some lamarckian principles. The modern diet, which since childhood, is loaded into artificial foods full of sugar and fat, combined with increased comfort offered by technology, may be having an effect on the epidemic rise of obesity in countries like the US.

Interestingly, in the past, the richer women were more likely to be fatter than the poorest women, for obvious reasons and now a lower middle-class woman in the US, lhas the same diet that a woman’s upper class in Europe in past centuries.

Obesity is genetic, but depends on a number of factors that can estimate its heredity. Seems.

Again the example the height of the Nordic and pygmies. Any trace, depending on the genetic diversity of the group, may vary widely if not under strong selection. On the other hand, in some populations, certain traits are already fixed, as the height of these two groups exemplified.

Germanic peoples are not tall because of a genetic mutation, they (especially the Dutch) used to have shorter stature than southern Europeans. Northern Europeans eat more milk and other animal products than southern Europeans who eat much more vegetables.

Pygmies however have an identified mutation that limits their growth. The reason for it is not well understood but it is most likely an adaptation to their environment, or to the nutritional scarcity of their environment which may require more energy to be spent on brain growth instead of body growth.

Sounds to corroborate your theory except that the genetic map of Europe is completely different from the linguistic one. The most reasonable assumption is that culture, including diet and lifestyle favor taller stature in Northern Europeans.

And by the way, do you know that hight which has heritability over 0.80 has experiences no racial hierarchy and is hyper sensitive to environment. Why not IQ which has lower heritability.

and for your information, natural selection, and large scale mutations take more than 50 years to happen. And they act through increased mortality and lower fertility, not by the sole will of our brazilian queen…

”and for your information, natural selection, and large scale mutations take more than 50 years to happen. And they act through increased mortality and lower fertility, not by the sole will of our brazilian queen…”

I tried to act civilized with you, but it seems that you did not come out of the jungle.

Take 50 years, it depends on the degree of demographic preponderance, as well as trace dominance.

Well, your irrational hate against people who defend you naively by supposed universal equality, as many homosexuals, only shows that the recent spell of two hbds bloggers for his alleged ” brightness’ is nothing but a foolish mistake.

you do not fool me negro (again, no offense to decent black people who read this blog, including blogger).

More than perfect representation of a ” black magic ” seems’ ‘very intelligent’, but when you show that you are following the wrong ideas, and by childish reasons shows us that continues with both feet in the jungle, the giant slum called Haiti.

Liberalism would be perfect without the partial homosexual dysfunctionality, which ends up being bad for the homosexuals themselves, but especially the right treatment to a weed that erode any civilization, called black race, with its valuable exceptions, is not your case dear.

And I thought you had learned after being publicly humiliated by me showing you how stupid it is, but not, will continue to believe in the wrong, to break his head in half.

His pseudo-ideas about Extreme Environmentalism, do not work with someone living with people of all races since childhood, and that is an outsider with sharp vision.

Sound just as pure idiocy of someone who has shown for most people here, which is unreliable and moreover, is pedantically arrogant, like most morons called leftists.

“Take 50 years, it depends on the degree of demographic preponderance, as well as trace dominance.”

Stupid, it takes super-breeders to impregnate a whole population within three generations and sweep away less advantageous genetic variants.

“And I thought you had learned after being publicly humiliated by me ”

When the hell did you humiliate me ? You know, if you want to humiliate me, you must start writing english on your own first and do without google translate. You humiliate yourself, now go get a dick and you’ll be fine.

”By the way, thank you santoculto for not reproducing. The world doesn’t need another you.”

Thanks Newton too**

Never sing victory ahead of time, negro. I’m only 26 years old and I am very smart.

I is that I’m sad to imagine a pathetic person like you with their little monkeys, so arrogant and stupid as his father.

The world needs special people, which is not yout case, ok. In fact, the world needs sterilize at least 60% of Africans or force them to fertility rates at the Lithuanian level.

I hope you put forth his joy to his French compatriots gauche and other Europeans, their ‘friends from childhood.’ ‘ Right ** You are a Little Satan as Bibi said **

You confuses foolishly everyone here knows, his saaad life story, with all the rest. You think to have been created by white parents in a white paradise, which is not where your ” precious ” genes ( regression to shit) are bubbling vibrant way, did more intelligent. Surely you have very little knowledge about yourself and is therefore less human, to realize that you would be this negroid mattoide, anywhere.

When you are happy that says a person you do not know and that is childishly fighting over the internet (adult, presumably) might not go to reproduce, you’re basically proving that his idea to define as an anti-hereditarian not It makes any sense when you feel foolishly happy that a person who you don’t know, because he can not pass their behavioural genes, and you, pedantically, to reproduce, believing that by being a black mattoide, makes a certain SUPRA special… and will pass their ”precious” genes of ”mattoidism” (pseudo-intelligence) to their little monkeys.

My life story is the opposite of sad and don’t worry for my children, they’re coming in a couple years and their already well ahead of you in life even before conception. Just hope my son’s not gonna be a foggot, that’s the only way he could be fucked up.

”Stupid, it takes super-breeders to impregnate a whole population within three generations and sweep away less advantageous genetic variants.”

Is much insanity of this trash, my son, you do not realize that every your comment, there is a new contradiction.It contradicts as if by osmosis, his criticism is not criticism, just agreed with what I said and cursed me.

The guilt of a freak like you, shouting to the four corners of the world, which is a genius, is in part by the very HBD, which popularized the sterile psychometric evaluation of intelligence, regardless essential traits as character, honesty, etc. ..

”When the hell did you humiliate me ? You know, if you want to humiliate me, you must start writing english on your own first and do without google translate. You humiliate yourself, now go get a dick and you’ll be fine.”

Most people understand my English.

Again, history and social science lessons for negroid here.

70% of homosexuals are anti-racist and many of them are insanely anti-racist. They are dumb *** there is no doubt. For me, people like you, or you would not be born would be modified to be like me, a good, intelligent, rational person. In other words, would not you anyway.

You have the best of all worlds, and yet still the same rascal ever.

I humiliated you many times in the Robert Lindsay blog, because it is easy to point to obvious contradictions stupid people. It is humbling to see someone rearranging your thinking, showing you how it’s done.

The homosexual is not guilty of what makes but at least it does not pollute the genetic pool of other populations with their genes-trash, atavistic ape.

Gay wins the black because black is an epidemic explosion of dysfunctionality, Brazil that do not let me lie. Can you estimate with great accuracy where it is less violent, just by race. And this humiliation is worldwide, until even in countries like India, where people tend to have dark skin, even among Aborigines.

The truly intelligent black will accept the dysfunctionality the group to which it belongs and will reject it, seeking a reconstruction of a possible ethnic community.

black psychopathic will try to push all this garbage called ‘behavioral environmentalism’ ‘for advantages over the others.

There is no doubt that you’re the most unpleasant person who has appeared in hbdsphere, this because we still have to endure the daily idiocy repeated by Swank and psychotic attacks Mugabe, although he is right about many subjects, never makes so polished, educated, civilized. Much less you that continues and will continue forever in your jungle.

And by the way, do you know that hight which has heritability over 0.80 has experiences no racial hierarchy and is hyper sensitive to environment. Why not IQ which has lower heritability.

You agrees that pygmies are short for genetic reasons. Pygmies are a race. Not a major race, but a race within a race. So if there can be an absolutely colossal genetic differences in height between the pygmies of the rain-forest and the Dinka people in the Bahr el Ghazal region of the Nile basin, why can’t there be just a 1 SD genetic difference in IQ between American blacks and American whites?

If IQ is even a fraction as genetic as height, such group differences should emerge.

You agrees that pygmies are short for genetic reasons. Pygmies are a race. Not a major race, but a race within a race. So if there can be an absolutely colossal genetic differences in height between the pygmies of the rain-forest and the Dinka people in the Bahr el Ghazal region of the Nile basin, why can’t there be just a 1 SD genetic difference in IQ between American blacks and American whites?

Actually, I think Cavalli-Sforza and other geneticists classify Pygmies separately from other Sub-Saharan blacks (with Bushmen forming another group) because they diverged so long ago- long before the other races diverged, so I’m guessing maybe almost 100,000 years ago. Of course, I know you like to classify all Africans together along with Australoids because of their similar facial and skin color phenotypes.

Your main point still stands: if populations within the same race vary by as much as several SD, then why can’t races as a whole?

Also, I hope Santoculto and Afrosapiens can stop bickering. I mean, I’m impressed they can bicker so well in a 2nd language, but they’re devolving into ad hominem attacks.

just a 1 SD genetic difference in IQ between American blacks and American whites?

Height has a higher beneficial mutation rate and alleles of large effect are easier to come by. That’s why there can be huge skin color differences, hair texture differences, and eye color differences too.

Intelligence is much more complex, which decreases the beneficial mutation rate to such a degree that we only see huge likely jumps in it during hominid evolution every 2 million years or so.

Height has a higher beneficial mutation rate and alleles of large effect are easier to come by. That’s why there can be huge skin color differences, hair texture differences, and eye color differences too.
Intelligence is much more complex, which decreases the beneficial mutation rate to such a degree that we only see huge likely jumps in it during hominid evolution every 2 million years or so.

Not even the most extreme HBDer has suggested any racially genetic difference in IQ is as large as the largest racially genetic difference in height, which might exceed 4.5 SD. Indeed the allegedly genetic 1 SD difference between U.S. blacks and whites is only a fifth as big.

Not even the most extreme HBDer has suggested any racially genetic difference in IQ is as large as the largest racially genetic difference in height, which might exceed 4.5 SD.

Actually, the height differences between the major races are pretty small when you compare people raised in first world environments- usually around 3 inches max, although maybe five if you consider northern Europeans to be their own race, and compare them to East Asians.

It’s only when you bring Pygmies into the discussion do you see more dramatic racial height differences.

The preponderance of evidence suggests IQ is an interval scale, not an an ordinal scale, at least within the range of 3 SD from either side of the mean.

The only direct evidence suggests that IQ is an ordinal scale: people in each norming are judged relative to one another and that’s that; the SD and mean is the same each time.

IQ would only be an interval scale if the difference between 85-100-115 is the same difference between 145-160 and 70-85. It is not. Even SLODR supports this. The FE does not support this: was a 1900 era white likely retarded? No!

Regarding real-world predictive power, let’s assume two runners have finish times of 1 and 1.1 seconds. One is assigned 1st place and the other is assigned 2nd place. 4 million dollars accrues to whoever wins 1st place and 10 dollars accrues to wins 2nd place. MOREOVER, in addition to the money, the FACT that an individual received “1st place” entitles him to further “sprinter’s training” at an elite level, whereas the other sprinter receives nothing.

1st and 2nd place will have a lot of predictive power in that society. And they will STILL denote a TRIVIAL difference.

which might exceed 4.5 SD

And if we go with HBD-svengali Hsu, Intelligence is “twenty times more complicated than height,” and we assume that this all is nearly unity with differences expected, then we may expect ~.2 SD difference to represent the extreme difference we find between [everyone else] and pygmies.

It’s only when you bring Pygmies into the discussion do you see more dramatic racial height differences.

Correct. The biggest height differences are between very specific races, but then the biggest IQ differences are also between very specific races (Ashkenazim vs Bushmen). I just want to see if Swank will even concede the plausibility of even a 1 SD genetic IQ difference between any two ethnic groups on the planet, let alone between macro-races (where I agree the analogy gets strained)

The only direct evidence suggests that IQ is an ordinal scale: people in each norming are judged relative to one another and that’s that; the SD and mean is the same each time.

That’s just not true Swank. There’s tons of direct evidence that IQ is an interval scale. Total vocabulary (an absolute scale where each word is the unit) is normally distributed which means it correlates with IQ in a linear way without any statistical transformations. The same is true for the Digit Symbol IQ test (another absolute scale where your score equals the number of symbols written in about 90 seconds), Digit Span IQ (another interval scale where each digit is the unit of measurement) and complex chronometric tests.

In addition, when you try to predict the IQ of someone from the IQ of their sibling using simple linear regression, as Jensen did, the linear prediction worked within the full range of IQs in an entire school system (IQ 50 to 150).

Now some of these relationships almost certainly breakdown at the far extremes (especially at the low extreme where conditions like Downs syndrome override the normal polygenetic variation in IQ), but that’s irrelevant because race differences are within the normal range.

The FE does not support this: was a 1900 era white likely retarded? No!

That has nothing to do with whether it’s an interval scale or not. It has to do with whether it’s measuring the same construct when taken at different times. As Jensen noted, if you measure a person’s height from their shadows at different times of day, someone whos shadow would indicate normal height at one hour would appear to be a midget at another, but in both cases there’s a linear relationship between shadow height and real height.

And if we go with HBD-svengali Hsu, Intelligence is “twenty times more complicated than height,” and we assume that this all is nearly unity with differences expected, then we may expect ~.2 SD difference to represent the extreme difference we find between [everyone else] and pygmies.

It might also have been vastly more important than height in some places compared to others.

Further, as Mugabe mentioned, there’s some literature claiming uniquely beneficial IQ genes in Ashkenazim such as gaucher’s and heterozygosity for tay sachs. If that could evolve in such a tiny incredibly young ethnic group, then one might expect huge differences in groups separated for a 100,000 years, although admittedly, the Ashkenazim claims are not well researched.

It might also have been vastly more important than height in some places compared to others.

Human society itself strongly selected for intelligence. Early human societies had similar primitive hunter-gatherer structure, which suggests that the selection during evolutionary time was also roughly uniform. Intelligence is important in all human societies and likely has a low beneficial mutation rate (unlike height); height is much more variable in its importance and has a higher beneficial mutation, which is why we’d expect it to vary more. So if anything, the number derived from Hsu overestimates the difference.

some literature claiming

“Some literature” has claimed genes for IQ for many many years now. All false positives so far.

Except the nature of the tests themselves. IQ 70 does not have half the intelligence of IQ 140. Therefore, it is not an interval scale

You’re confusing an interval scale with a ratio scale. A ratio scale has a true zero point and equal intervals. An interval scale has only the latter, while an ordinal scale is merely a ranking.

The Vocab test suffers from the same problem. The difference between knowing words 0-1 SD is likely unequal to the difference between knowing the words between 2-3 SD and so on.

If an IQ 70 knows 10% of the language, and an IQ 80 knows 20%, and an IQ 90 knows 30% and an IQ 100 knows 40% etc; that’s what an interval scale is.

A normal distribution does not mean whatever the scale is = interval.

Yes it does, because total vocabulary, digit span, digit symbol, chronometics etc, are all interval scales (all ratio scales too), so if they have the same distribution as the IQ scores they’re converted to, then said IQ scores are interval scales also, because converting raw scores to IQs is entirely linear.

“IQ scales are ordinally scaled.[34][35][36][37][38]”

Most IQ tests are indeed lazily designed as merely ordinal scales (i.e. arbitrary selecting words for people to define, rather than taking a random sample of the whole language) but the point is that when raw scores are an interval scale, they have the same natural distribution as the ordinal scales are forced to have.

“You agrees that pygmies are short for genetic reasons. Pygmies are a race. Not a major race, but a race within a race. ”

Yes, sorry for this omission.

Actually, the height of pygmies is an example of racial phenotype. Contrary to IQ and behavior, pygmies’ height in the normal range does not overlap with other races’ height, you never find pygmies that are taller than non-pygmies, neither do you see non-dwarf other race people shorter than pygmies. Moreover, the height of pygmies does not change once they sedentarize and adopt a similar lifestyle as their neighbors. So this is clearly a sign of genetic adaptation to a specific environment, more importantly, the genetic basis of this adaptation has been identified by molecular genetics.

And yes pygmies like bushmen are a race, not even a race within a race. Their black neighbors see them as a different race and pygmies themselves see themselves as a different race. And actually, anti-pygmies racism is alongside anti-bushmen racism the most terrific form of racism that exist in the world. Their black neighbors hold them as slaves, apply total segregation against them, it even goes as far as refusing to touch one thing that has been touched by a pygmy. The most consterning is that in some extreme cases, blacks see pygmies as animals and feel free and justified to eat them if necessary.

With respect to subraces within the black race, early 20th century anthropologists have separated the black race between:

-Sahelians (Quite typical negroids, tall, dark skinned, slender)

-Coastal West Africans (Typical negroid, shorter and lighter skinned than Sahelians, more robust built too)

-Nilotics (Tall, slender, very dark people with higher frequency of caucasoid and sometimes mongoloid features living along the Nile River)

-Bantus (coastal West Africans with pygmy/bushmen admixture)

This subraces are better seen as similar to the subraces of Europe and individuals from each subraces may have features that are typical of other black subraces. But Africans acknowledge these differences and use them to guess the ethnicity of Africans of different groups within the same country.

People of the Horn of Africa are seen as Caucasoids while the Fulani are thought as mostly Sahelians with moderate East and North African admixture.

But that’s not the correspondence to IQ. At all. And it’s also not the correspondence to “intelligence.”

then said IQ scores are interval scales also

A point increase on IQ can represent an increase or decrease in total vocabulary. There’s no clear meaning to the points and the difference in total vocab between 100-115 is not the same as the increase between 115-130.

And yet the source provides no evidence beyond a subjective impression

But they were hunting and gathering in very different places under very different conditions..

The line that led to homo sapiens occupied East Africa; the only time homo sapiens were in different places was in the last 200k years, which, given the other facts I listed, isn’t enough time for a new mutation to arise; humans are at the ceiling and have been there for awhile.

If Hsu said IQ is twenty times more complicated than height, we should allow twenty times more time to find the genes. Maybe thirty times considering political correctness.

Or maybe you can concede that IQ and behavior are fundamentally different from height. 🙂

There’s no clear meaning to the points and the difference in total vocab between 100-115 is not the same as the increase between 115-130

I suspect it more or less is; otherwise the distribution of total vocabulary would not be normal.

You say “the preponderance of the evidence suggests an interval scale,” but “here is little prima facie evidence to suggest that such attributes are anything more than ordinal (Cliff, 1996; Cliff & Keats, 2003; Michell, 2008).[9]”

The sources you’re citing are only right in a very trivial sense. That is when people design IQ tests, the raw scores can have almost any distribution they want because they know the scores will later be normalized.

So you can have nine questions that require only average IQ to solve, and one question that only brilliant people can solve, thus a score of 10/10 = IQ 145, and a sore of 9/10 = IQ 115 and a score of 8/10 = IQ 110. In that case, raw performance does not have a linear relationship with IQ because the tester deliberately included more items in the average difficulty range because that’s his target audience and that’s where he needs the test to most reliably discriminate.

However there are several IQ subtests where RAW SCORES (numbers of actual test items passed) are a true interval scale, or better yet a true ratio scale: number of digits you can repeat, number of words in your total vocabulary, number of symbols you can write in 90 seconds, etc,

And what is consistently found, is that the raw interval scale enjoys a beautifully linear relationship with IQ, at least in the range of about IQ 55 to IQ 145 (very few studies have data beyond that).

The line that led to homo sapiens occupied East Africa; the only time homo sapiens were in different places was in the last 200k years, which, given the other facts I listed, isn’t enough time for a new mutation to arise; humans are at the ceiling and have been there for awhile.

Then how do you explain all the variation in human brain size (both within and between races)? All caused by environment?

First, if there’s a latent trait being measured, one of the subtests being normal does not mean the latent trait is normal. There’s always a transformation to the normal, such that ‘total vocab’ can be such a transformation (such that total vocab – as – intelligence is not an interval scale despite being normal) and by extension ‘IQ.’

Second, if all ‘IQ’ measures is those specific skills, then the points are still ambiguous. A linear relationship short of unity means unaccounted for variance, which means that it’s consistent with the relationship being positive between IQ points and total vocab. So, the difference between 100-115 can be less than the difference between 145-160 and still yield a linear relationship.

The sources you’re citing are only right in a very trivial sense.

If they were only right in a “trivial” sense, they wouldn’t have used the term “prima facie.”

Then how do you explain all the variation in human brain size (both within and between races)? All caused by environment?

1) Some people are taller than others (and increases in brain and head size associated with this don’t have anything to do with intelligence).

2) Yes! As evidence of neural plasticity demonstrates, environment seems able to explain a lot of the differences in brain size. One would expect this if what was selected for was the plasticity itself.

Minds are like trampolines, and society/environment/culture is like a boulder sitting on the trampoline. An IQ test measures the depression created by the boulder. IMO some boulders are bigger than others, and there’s also slight variability in the elasticity of the material.

First, if there’s a latent trait being measured, one of the subtests being normal does not mean the latent trait is normal.

But we’re not talking about the latent trait, we’re talking about the measuring stick that measures the latent trait: performance on an IQ test. That’s the phenotype that is being measured,

1) Some people are taller than others (and increases in brain and head size associated with this don’t have anything to do with intelligence).

1) Actually it does. There was an experiment where mice were bred for nothing but maze solving ability. The result was that the mice not only evolved to have bigger brains, but bigger bodies. The conclusion was that the body serves as a power pack for the brain.

2) Height only explains about 4% of the variation in brain size.

2) Yes! As evidence of neural plasticity demonstrates, environment seems able to explain a lot of the differences in brain size.

I’ve asked you over and over and over again to cite a single study showing significant gains in overall brain size caused by environmental interventions, and all you do is quote studies claiming specific regions or specific types of brain matter increased to unknown degrees. One could just as easily claim height is extremely plastic because people are taller in the morning than at night.

One would expect this if what was selected for was the plasticity itself.

Don;t confuse the plasticity of human behavior (adaptability), with the plasticity of the size of the organ that causes the behavior. Our behavior is plastic because our brains are big, not because our brains are constantly changing overall size.

But we’re not talking about the latent trait, we’re talking about the measuring stick that measures the latent trait: performance on an IQ test. That’s the phenotype that is being measured,

And the next point addressed that as well. A linear relationship does not preclude unevenly spaced intervals.

Actually it does.

No, it doesn’t. Mice aren’t humans, and was this experiment even replicated?

Height only explains about 4% of the variation in brain size.

And IQ only explains about 10% if we go by the .33 correlation found by the best meta-analysis of the phenomenon. Obviously height and frame together can probably

overall brain size

If a study states that brain volume increased in certain areas, overall brain size would increase unless you believe that the brain shrunk in some other area.

Don;t confuse

What was selected for was plasticity and the ability to specialize. The mechanism for specialization involves these changes we see in the brain during learning. It’s likely that the mutations that brought us from chimps to human enabled higher and higher levels of mastery. So yes, the plasticity was selected for indirectly through its phenotypical manifestation as specialization.

And the next point addressed that as well. A linear relationship does not preclude unevenly spaced intervals.

It does when the raw score on the test are evenly spaced intervals, and the IQ score on the test is virtually identical to a linear transformation of said raw scores.

No, it doesn’t. Mice aren’t humans, and was this experiment even replicated?

Mice aren’t humans but a lot of knowledge applicable to humans is first learned from animal studies. Has the experiment ever been contradicted?

And IQ only explains about 10% if we go by the .33 correlation found by the best meta-analysis of the phenomenon.

What you consider to be a good meta-analysis did not correct for restriction of range and went out of its way to seek unpublished low results, while making no effort to seek unpublished high results, so that’s a conservative estimate. Other researchers conclude the true correlation is 0.5:

But even if the correlation is on;y 0.33 or even 0.2, brain size is still one of the causes of intelligence variation, and brain size was incredibly selected for as we evolved from apes, so why does it vary so much in humans, even after correcting for body-size, which is likely an over-correction? .

If a study states that brain volume increased in certain areas, overall brain size would increase unless you believe that the brain shrunk in some other area.

Saying overall brain size increased proves nothing unless you can put an impressive value on the increase. As I said, your height increases every time you go to sleep, but you argue that brain size is more plastic than height. Problem is, you don’t have the data to prove it.

What was selected for was plasticity and the ability to specialize. The mechanism for specialization involves these changes we see in the brain during learning.

Specialization would imply one part of the brain grows at the expense of other parts, not an ability to increase overall brain size just from learning a new task.

the IQ score on the test is virtually identical to a linear transformation of said raw scores.

.8 is high but not “virtually identical,” and not enough to preclude a falling or uneven relationship. An IQ point isn’t just total vocab or any of the other subtests. It can mean any. Sometimes it can mean less total vocab and more BDS. Sometimes it can mean less of both but a lot more of something else. SLDR implies that “g” explains less variance past a certain point, and the tests most loaded on ‘g’ are the ones you mention. But you say “a preponderance,” whereas everyone else says there’s not even a prima facie case.

a lot of knowledge applicable to humans is first learned from animal studies.

And a lot of noise is generated from animal studies too.

so why does it vary so much in humans, even after correcting for body-size, which is likely an over-correction?

If we controlled for body size, it probably wouldn’t vary as much, and you already know my answer…

Problem is, you don’t have the data to prove it.

No, you just keep ignoring it. The changes in brain structure are enduring; the changes in height at night are not. Brain structure can be altered at any age; height cannot be.

Specialization would imply one part of the brain grows at the expense of other parts

No, it would imply that certain parts grow more than other parts — which seems true. People have different cognitive profiles and have different strengths and weaknesses. In a primitive tribe it makes sense for two people to diversify and specialize and ensure reciprocal altruism. The ability to do this, and to do it in response to a variety of environments and situations, seems like it was highly selected for.

the IQ score on the test is virtually identical to a linear transformation of said raw scores.
.8 is high but not “virtually identical,” and not enough to preclude a falling or uneven relationship. An IQ point isn’t just total vocab or any of the other subtests.

Some IQ tests are uni-dimensional (Raven progressive matrices, Peabody Picture Vocabulary, Wordsum, etc) and your assigned IQ score perfectly, not 0.8, but perfectly, correlates with your performance on said test, so when raw scores on such test are an interval scale, a 1 SD difference really is a 1 SD difference. .

SLDR implies that “g” explains less variance past a certain point, and the tests most loaded on ‘g’ are the ones you mention.

SLDR is extremely controversial, and only kicks in at high levels, and we’re not talking about g, but IQ (performance on an IQ test) because that’s the measurable phenotype

But you say “a preponderance,” whereas everyone else says there’s not even a prima facie case.

Everyone else does not say that, and those who do can’t back it up.

If we controlled for body size, it probably wouldn’t vary as much, and you already know my answer…

If we controlled for body size it would vary only slightly less.

No, you just keep ignoring it. The changes in brain structure are enduring; the changes in height at night are not. Brain structure can be altered at any age; height cannot be.

I was asking about overall brain size, not brain structure. And height can be altered at any age…people who exercise more see less decline in height. There’s even surgery that can dramatically increase height…nothing similar for brain size.

No, it would imply that certain parts grow more than other parts — which seems true.

The brain is metabolically very expensive. If we evolved to specialize, it would make more sense to grow the parts of the brain we specialized in and shrink other parts. And there’s only so much room in the skull, or do you think the cranium itself expands when we learn new skills. Does your hat feel too small after you’ve mastered a new task?

The first alteration is a long-term interaction between time, gravity, and a person’s skeleton. The second ‘alteration’ is a painful surgery with over a year’s worth of recovery and in many cases a permanent athletic ability decrease. In contrast, altering one’s brain takes a few weeks of painless learning. Apples/oranges.

If we evolved to specialize, it would make more sense to grow the parts of the brain we specialized in and shrink other parts.

No, because beyond language everyone did not specialize in the same activities. Being part of society means filling a social niche, which change many times in a lifetime and more times across generations.

And there’s only so much room in the skull, or do you think the cranium itself expands when we learn new skills.

One’s head is bigger than one’s brain by a fair amount. And if an increase in task IQ causes the expansion, then relatively small increases in brain size would equate to large increases in task IQ.

And SLDR has nothing to do with whether an IQ is an interval scale; it has only to do with whether IQ is g loaded at high levels. Stop confusing the issue.

Sure.

I am sure.

One’s head is bigger than one’s brain by a fair amount.

Not really:

And if an increase in task IQ causes the expansion, then relatively small increases in brain size would equate to large increases in task IQ.

No one disputes that specific tasks can be improved through mental exercise, the question is to what extent does improvement on that specific task transfer to other tasks, and to what extent is overall brain size improved. I see lots of enthusiastic claims, but very few hard numbers.

The number of words in a person’s vocabulary is both an interval scale, and a very useful measure of IQ.

Both assertions are consistent with what I have argued.

And SLDR has nothing to do with whether an IQ is an interval scale;

Yes, it does. The decreasing correlations between the tests suggest that any particular test explains less and less of the variance in FIQ, because the abilities are increasingly differentiated, which suggests that the relationship between any particular test and FIQ decreases as one moves to the right on the bell curve.

One could consider the SAT an entire battery of subtests and the relationship between SAT score and IQ follows that exact pattern.

No one disputes that specific tasks can be improved through mental exercise,

But the question you pose from this undisputed fact isn’t the question. Most, if not all, tasks are a combination of several “specific tasks.” Improving in a life task therefore is like improving on several specific tasks simultaneously.

No they’re not. You argued that a 1 SD difference between two groups is meaningless because IQ is not an interval scale. I just gave you an example of an IQ test that is an interval scale, so your objection seems like a red herring.

Yes, it does. The decreasing correlations between the tests suggest that any particular test explains less and less of the variance in FIQ,

Logical fallacy. If the correlation between height and weight got lower at higher levels, would that prove that weight is not an interval and ratio scale? In any event this whole discussion of SLDR seems like a red herring within a red herring. Several IQ tests are unidimensional and not part of a full-scale battery. You’re deliberately evading that point.

It depends what age; and whatever shortfall between brain volume and cranial volume that exists is largely there to make room for cerebrospinal fluid which plays a vital role in cushioning the brain against blows. When brain size does increase via swelling, it usually represents a life threatening situation because of the enormous pressure for room in the skull.

Further, in some studies, the fit between brain volume and cranial volume is so tight, that estimates sometimes yield brain volumes that are 6% larger than cranial capacity:

At birth, 4 months, I year, and 7 years the
resulting cranial capacities are 332, 578, 806, and 1154 cm3, respectively, compared to brain weights of 373, 582, 919, and 1,296 grams. The brain-weights just presented, however, are approximately 9% above the weight in vivo because as Voigt and Pakkenberg (1983, p. 299) note, brain weight increases post-mortem, mostly during the first 12 hours after death. Thus, “real” brain weights at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years are 339, 530, 836, and 1,179 grams, respectively, which transform to cranial capacities (1 cm3 = 1.036 g; Hofman, 1991) of 351,549, 866, and 1,221 cm3, only about 6% higher than those I calculated from head circumferences.

But the question you pose from this undisputed fact isn’t the question. Most, if not all, tasks are a combination of several “specific tasks.” Improving in a life task therefore is like improving on several specific tasks simultaneously.

There’s no doubt multiple specific skills can be increased, but the question is how well do these improvements transfer to performance on novel mental tasks one hasn’t prepared for.

I just gave you an example of an IQ test that is an interval scale, so your objection seems like a red herring.

No, you gave me an example of an interval scale that is correlated with IQ.

If the correlation between height and weight got lower at higher levels, would that prove that weight is not an interval and ratio scale?

If the scale is something height-blood-pressure-weight, and one argues that height is normally distributed and correlates well with height-blood-pressure-weight, but then as we move further to the right on the curve, we see that the relationship between height and height-blood-pressure-weight breaks down because the correlations between all three break down, then yes, that is evidence.

Like I said, the SAT can be considered as a battery of subtests and the scatterplot with IQ certainly looks like it shows a curvelinear relationship.

You’re deliberately evading that point.

a) and b) above address it. The raw scores usually exhibit considerable skew and those uni-dimensional measures are only useful to the extent they approximate FIQ.

is largely there

Yes there’s so little room that apparently learning almost anything and everything under the sun increases brain volume. All evidence increasingly points to it being a lot like a muscle; in fact, imagining lifting weights might be almost as good as lifting weights: http://jn.physiology.org/content/112/12/3219. I’ve already explained why small increases could account for large ‘task IQ’ increases.

There’s no doubt multiple specific skills can be increased, but the question is how well do these improvements transfer to performance on novel mental tasks one hasn’t prepared for.

No such thing as a novel test. Every single test tests prior acquired knowledge.

And you agree that all of the tasks represented by these subtests can be improved.

No, you gave me an example of an interval scale that is correlated with IQ.

An IQ test is just a psychometric test that is highly correlated with other IQ tests in the general population of a Western country. Vocabulary qualifies.

If the scale is something height-blood-pressure-weight, and one argues that height is normally distributed and correlates well with height-blood-pressure-weight, but then as we move further to the right on the curve, we see that the relationship between height and height-blood-pressure-weight breaks down because the correlations between all three break down, then yes, that is evidence.

But I’m not even necessarily arguing that. I’m arguing that even some unidimensional tests are IQ tests, so when these are interval scales, your objection to quantifying a 1 SD difference between ethnic groups becomes void.

Like I said, the SAT can be considered as a battery of subtests and the scatterplot with IQ certainly looks like it shows a curvelinear relationship.

The one on the left does, but the other two don’t, so no consistent pattern, especially when you allow for ceiling bumping:

Jensen showed that the SAT has a linear relationship with GPA within the full range of 200 to 800.

The raw scores usually exhibit considerable skew

Not until you reach the extremes, and height and weight both exhibit considerable skew yet are both interval (and ratio) scales.

and those uni-dimensional measures are only useful to the extent they approximate FIQ.

No, they’re useful to the extent they predict real life outcomes, but how useful they are is different from whether they’re interval scales, and whether a 1 SD ethnic difference on such scales is meaningful.

Yes there’s so little room that apparently learning almost anything and everything under the sun increases brain volume.

Increases a PART of brain volume, to an UNKNOWN degree. Sleeping on anything anywhere under the sun increases height, but the increase is TRIVIAL. The increase is total brain volume is also probably trivial which is why they only talk about specific regions, and even then, they don’t report hard numbers.

No such thing as a novel test. Every single test tests prior acquired knowledge.

No such thing as a 100% novel test, but some tests are novel enough that they are referred to as “novel tests” by psychologists

And you agree that all of the tasks represented by these subtests can be improved.

Yes. But the training doesn’t transfer to new subtests. You could improve your skill at playing chess by several SD, but the effect of said practice on your ability to play checkers would be tiny, and the effect on your ability to play scrabble would be nil.

Because you’ve removed any and all force behind the 1 SD difference representing anything innate or important. If it’s just the skill and we know that the skills are indeed subject to practice effects and can be changed, the entire debate is trivial.

FIQ is the important metric and only because it approximates “g,” which is supposed to be the latent construct of interest.

The one on the left does, but the other two don’t

The battery, which would be the left, shows my point. The one in the middle is just a predicted score from the tests rather than the raw test scores themselves. The one on the right does support me because the variability increases as one moves either side of 1350.

The increase is total brain volume is also probably trivial

And I already explained why small increases may represent large boosts in task IQ.

some tests are novel enough that they are referred to as “novel tests” by psychologists

And most psychologists believe IQ is an ordinal scale and does not meet the requirements of an interval scale, as well as believe that SLODR exists, but you don’t seem to care about their opinions then.

I always knew anti-HBDers believe in The Secret:

Better than stars and bars, hoss.

Yes. But the training doesn’t transfer to new subtests.

If 5 or 6 subtests determine success at chess and one masters them, then one will become great at chess.

IQ is X amount of subtests that determine certain aspects of success in a current society. Mastering them will ensure the same type of success. And if one can master them in the same way one can master chess, then that’s that.

If society radically changes, yes….the information won’t transfer. That’s probably why a white in 1900 would be ‘retarded’ in this society.

So now vocabulary is IQ? If that is true, then what you are trying to equate to “IQ” in fact can be altered and improved.

IQ is just performance on an IQ test expressed in IQ units. Yes it can be altered and improved, but when that’s done to an unusual degree, it’s no longer considered valid as a measure of intelligence. But since intelligence is an abstraction that can’t be measured directly, all that can be measured is performance on very g loaded tasks, and performance on said tasks are often interval scales, and when they are, we can say there’s a meaningful 1 SD difference between ethnic groups.

Now you can argue that that 1 SD difference doesn’t reflect the latent trait of g or intelligence, but since that variable can’t be directly measured, it’s of questionable scientific value to dwell on it.

The only directly observable cognitive phenotype is the test performance itself, and ethnic differences in said performance are either mostly environmental or mostly genetic or equally both. I am simply saying that a 1 SD ethnic genetic difference in highly g loaded cognitive performance is possible because we’ve seen nearly 5 SD ethnic differences in other polygenetic traits. I realize the genetic architecture of cognitive performance is much more complex than that of physical traits like height, so you might be right to expect much smaller ethnic differences in the former than the latter, but then, that’s exactly what’s being claimed.

The battery, which would be the left, shows my point. The one in the middle is just a predicted score from the tests rather than the raw test scores themselves. The one on the right does support me because the variability increases as one moves either side of 1350.

I’ll grant you the one on the left, but not the one on the right. In any event, a more relevant scatter plot is between SATs and performance on complex chronometric tests: a perfect interval scale based on physiological differences in absolute brain speed.

And I already explained why small increases may represent large boosts in task IQ.

But in the past you’ve argued that overall brain size is significantly more malleable than height. I just want to make clear that’s not scientifically supported.

If 5 or 6 subtests determine success at chess and one masters them, then one will become great at chess.

No because chess doesn’t depend on the subtests, it depends on specific talents those subtests sample, and improving your performance on a spatial subtest will barely transfer to other spatial tasks. Improving your performance on a strategy subtest, will barely transfer to other strategic tasks etc. Pretty much the only way to significantly improve your chess skill is to study and practice chess directly.

No, it is of scientific value because the leap is that the performance on the test reflects both “g” and a “full IQ.” Now, if it the interval scale is just literally limited to “how many words X people know,” then fine…but the test is now uninformative with regard to a) Full scale IQ (the performance on many subtests in a battery) and b) so-called ‘g.’ It’s precisely because the variable can’t be directly measured that transferring the specific properties of the limited test to the variables of interest is extremely questionable and likely why most psychologists agree with me.

more relevant scatter plot is between SATs and performance on complex chronometric tests:

And that scatter plot shows less variation between 50-55 than at 45-50, which shows less variation between 40-45.

This is sleight-of-hand. The 5 SD difference is not between groups that are large like races. It’s a specific, small group — pygmies. The height differences between races are much, much smaller, on the order of 1 SD. And even those are questionable.

It depends on how much more complex you believe height is vs. IQ. I believe it is more than 5x more complicated. Hsu said > 20 times more complicated. So it makes sense that the differences would be much, much less than 1 SD. Indeed, even using your metric of roughly 1/5 gets us down to .2 SD between races.

I just want to make clear that’s not scientifically supported.

Yes, it is. The examples of malleability you brought up for height are temporary or require painstaking life-altering effort (the surgery). The examples I brought up of malleability in brain size are enduring and easily achieved.

No because chess doesn’t depend on the subtests

Indeed, substitute “skills measured by those subtests.” And the same is true of IQ. Someone has to immerse themselves in an environment where the right games are played.

No, it is of scientific value because the leap is that the performance on the test reflects both “g” and a “full IQ.” Now, if it the interval scale is just literally limited to “how many words X people know,” then fine…but the test is now uninformative with regard to a) Full scale IQ (the performance on many subtests in a battery) and b) so-called ‘g.’

Actually a sufficiently long vocabulary test would be more g loaded than the full-scale IQs of some tests. And full-scale IQ on one test is an imperfect measure of full-scale IQ on another test.

It’s precisely because the variable can’t be directly measured that transferring the specific properties of the limited test to the variables of interest is extremely questionable and likely why most psychologists agree with me.

There’s no evidence most psychologists agree with you, let alone most psychologists who specialize in IQ. And regardless of how well IQ distributions reflect the distribution of intelligence itself, performance on many IQ tests is an interval scale, and thus a 1 SD difference in test performance (not g or intelligence) is a meaningful gap in phenotype that could be 100% genetic.

And that scatter plot shows less variation between 50-55 than at 45-50, which shows less variation between 40-45.

There’s less variation at the higher end because there are fewer data points. And first your argument was that the correlation should be curvilinear, and now you’re saying less variation at the high end. You’re all over the map.

This is sleight-of-hand. The 5 SD difference is not between groups that are large like races. It’s a specific, small group — pygmies. The height differences between races are much, much smaller, on the order of 1 SD. And even those are questionable.

Some of the IQ gaps claimed by HBDers are also between small groups (i.e. Ashkenazi jews vs gentiles, Bushmen vs non-Bushmen). You seem unwilling to admit to the plausibility of even a 1 SD genetic IQ gap between ANY two ethnic groups on the planet (large or small).

It depends on how much more complex you believe height is vs. IQ. I believe it is more than 5x more complicated. Hsu said > 20 times more complicated. So it makes sense that the differences would be much, much less than 1 SD. Indeed, even using your metric of roughly 1/5 gets us down to .2 SD between races.

Hsu also believes IQ is very heritable which greatly increases the odds of group differences evolving. I think you’re probably right that the complexity of IQ retards its evolution, however I suspect dramatic changes in environment (ice age, agriculture, civilization) may have created increased selection pressures that accelerated it.

Or not.

At this point we just don’t know for sure, but if there’s about a 5 SD genetic gap in height between the World’s tallest and shortest ethnic group, I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t, at the very least, a 1 SD gap between the World’s smartest and dullest ethnic group.

Yes, it is. The examples of malleability you brought up for height are temporary or require painstaking life-altering effort (the surgery). The examples I brought up of malleability in brain size are enduring and easily achieved.

You haven’t brought up any meaningful examples because none of the studies you cited quantified the increase in even the specific region, let alone OVERALL brain size. For all we know it could be less than a 0.01 SD increase in global brain volume.

Actually a sufficiently long vocabulary test would be more g loaded than the full-scale IQs of some tests. And full-scale IQ on one test is an imperfect measure of full-scale IQ on another test.

It can’t be “g-loaded” if there are no other tests with which to compare it to. And the difference between tests of FIQ is an entirely different matter (but related because the subtest would likely have different relationships with each test of FIQ).

There’s no evidence most psychologists agree with you

Same the several citations I gave.

thus a 1 SD difference in test performance (not g or intelligence) is a meaningful gap in phenotype that could be 100% genetic.

If you limit ‘IQ’ to the subtest skill itself, then the suggestion of a ‘genetic’ difference becomes much less likely when the subtests themselves are subject to outsize practice effects that can take place in a short amount of time. It’s only when the tests are in a battery and several skills are tested together that the suggestion becomes interesting or plausible at all.

There’s less variation at the higher end because there are fewer data points.

Possibly. Or there’s just less of a relationship. More datapoints would reveal it. And the graph with the most data points supports me.

You’re all over the map.

The same implications are drawn from each. Non-linearity is a reasonable inference from hetereoskedasticity.

You seem unwilling to admit to the plausibility of even a 1 SD genetic IQ gap between ANY two ethnic groups on the planet (large or small).

Because there’s no reason to believe it’s plausible. If the largest differences in height we observe are 4.5 SD (and who knows what they are when those pygmies receive first-world environment), and intelligence is 20x more complicated….we would expect much, much smaller differences.

I suspect dramatic changes in environment (ice age, agriculture, civilization) may have created increased selection pressures that accelerated it.

But that’s irrelevant. If there’s no extra variation being added because of the low mutation rate, “increased selection” won’t do any good. The response will be nil.

People who grow up playing chess every single day as a way of life will get very good at playing chess (and IQ just measures the development of whatever skills one needs to master to play chess), especially relative to people who play it every now and again.

“Games” are a good simulation of culture and what it is. A good test would be to find games that develop skills that are tested by several IQ sub-tests. Then, with two twins reared apart, have one play that game every day for several hours. Then with the other twin, have another play that game much less often, but also play games with different rules….ones that utilize less g-loaded subtest skills. We can then check and see whether a similar gap would emerge between them.

It can’t be “g-loaded” if there are no other tests with which to compare it to.

There have been enough studies showing vocabulary is extremely g loaded, and the g loading increases the longer the test is.

Same the several citations I gave.

Non sequitur

If you limit ‘IQ’ to the subtest skill itself, then the suggestion of a ‘genetic’ difference becomes much less likely when the subtests themselves are subject to outsize practice effects that can take place in a short amount of time. It’s only when the tests are in a battery and several skills are tested together that the suggestion becomes interesting or plausible at all.

Heritable not equal immutable.

The same implications are drawn from each. Non-linearity is a reasonable inference from hetereoskedasticity.

Whatever non-linearity you see is just random statistical noise or ceiling bumping effects. More studies finding linear relations:

Because there’s no reason to believe it’s plausible. If the largest differences in height we observe are 4.5 SD (and who knows what they are when those pygmies receive first-world environment), and intelligence is 20x more complicated….we would expect much, much smaller differences.

20x more complicated != 20x less heritable.

But that’s irrelevant. If there’s no extra variation being added because of the low mutation rate, “increased selection” won’t do any good. The response will be nil.

There’s enormous phenotypic variation in all the modern human traits that are thought to play a causal role in IQ variation: brain size, reaction time, nerve conduction speed, brain glucose metabolic rate, brain myelination, brain waves etc, You would have to show that all of these traits have very low heritability for your argument to be tenable.

“Games” are a good simulation of culture and what it is. A good test would be to find games that develop skills that are tested by several IQ sub-tests. Then, with two twins reared apart, have one play that game every day for several hours. Then with the other twin, have another play that game much less often, but also play games with different rules….ones that utilize less g-loaded subtest skills. We can then check and see whether a similar gap would emerge between them.

There have been extremely intensive experimental attempts to raise cognitive ability by giving kids from deprived homes extreme intellectual stimulation during their formative years. My understanding was that the effects were extremely modest.

The only reason “g-loading” is interesting and the only way “g-loading” can be a property of this hypothetical test you are imagining is in comparison to other tests. If you are not talking about the correlation it has with other tests, which itself a construct to which the other critiques apply, then talking about g-loading is irrelevant.

Non sequitur

Actually it was a typo: save the citations I provided.

Heritable not equal immutable.

They are not identity, but a genetic hypothesis is only interesting if it is tied to some implication about malleability. The intuitive appeal rests in observations that seem sticky over several generations. And if the supposed gap (as measured on the specific subtests that you now want to take as IQ alone) can be erased easily with a short time of training, that casts doubt on the differences being genetically determined.

Whatever non-linearity you see is just random statistical noise or ceiling bumping effects.

No that’s just your opinion of it. The plot with the most data points and subtests supports me.

20x more complicated != 20x less heritable.

Indeed, it’s likely an underestimate given the evolutionary differences between a trait like height and one like intelligence: plenty of animals have more robust and larger skeletons. No animal in the universe duplicates human intelligence and behavior. And the height differences between large groups like races are on the order of 1 SD. So the differential between races is likely much much smaller.

all the modern human traits

And all show substantial plasticity.

show that all of these traits

No I don’t. I can just show that the plasticity the traits exhibit shows that heritability estimates are, as usual, of limited usefulness.

The only reason “g-loading” is interesting and the only way “g-loading” can be a property of this hypothetical test you are imagining is in comparison to other tests. If you are not talking about the correlation it has with other tests, which itself a construct to which the other critiques apply, then talking about g-loading is irrelevant.

But IQ is not g. IQ is your measured performance on a g loaded test. Since said performance is measurable on an interval scale, your original objection about SD differences being meaningless is wrong.

Now, you can argue that a 1 SD difference in g is meaningless, but few people argue that there’s a 1 SD difference in g between races, they argue that there’s a 1 SD difference in scores on highly g loaded tests.

Actually it was a typo: save the citations I provided.

I realized it was a typo, but the intended statement is still a non sequitur

They are not identity, but a genetic hypothesis is only interesting if it is tied to some implication about malleability. The intuitive appeal rests in observations that seem sticky over several generations. And if the supposed gap (as measured on the specific subtests that you now want to take as IQ alone) can be erased easily with a short time of training, that casts doubt on the differences being genetically determined.

The reason the IQ test measures intelligence is precisely because people differ very little in how hard they are trying to change their scores, so if one goes to unusual efforts to improve, it probably just means they’ve invalidated the test for themselves.

No that’s just your opinion of it. The plot with the most data points and subtests supports me.

It supports you because of ceiling and floor effects.

Indeed, it’s likely an underestimate given the evolutionary differences between a trait like height and one like intelligence: plenty of animals have more robust and larger skeletons. No animal in the universe duplicates human intelligence and behavior.

In the universe? No animal on the planet duplicates human brain size (relative to body size) but human brain size clearly varies enormously for genetic reasons.

And the height differences between large groups like races are on the order of 1 SD. So the differential between races is likely much much smaller.

And the difference between the largest races is much greater than 1 SD on skin color, facial features, and facial traits,

And all show substantial plasticity.

You’ve provided zero evidence of anything close to SUBSTANTIAL plasticity.

The Polgar sisters were a specific case. They don’t prove that any random kid can be turned into a chess master. And even if they could, it doesn’t prove the gains made in chess TRANSFER to other domains.

Since said performance is measurable on an interval scale, your original objection about SD differences being meaningless is wrong.

You wanted to isolate the test to one test and then remove all possible latent constructs measured by the test such as FIQ and ‘g.’ In that context, there is no g-loading because you have removed the context in which the test can be g-loaded. All it is now is a skill subtest.

I realized it was a typo, but the intended statement is still a non sequitur

Citing to multiple psychologists is evidence that a majority support a certain view. It’s not a non-sequitur.

The reason the IQ test measures intelligence is precisely because people differ very little in how hard they are trying to change their scores

Patently false.

It supports you because of ceiling and floor effects.

In your opinion. But if SLODR is true, then g-loaded tests explain less and less of the variance in IQ as one moves to the right.

In the universe?

Afawk.

human brain size clearly varies enormously for genetic reasons.

The aspects of it connected with intelligence are a giant question mark wrt “genetic reasons,” and seeing as how the only genes with replicated effect are mutations that cause fatal brain shrinkage and we know for a fact that it is plastic…

You’ve provided zero evidence of anything close to SUBSTANTIAL plasticity.

Sure pp “Evidence to date suggests that both brief and extensive exposure to video-game play can result in a broad range of enhancements to various cognitive faculties that generalize beyond the original context.”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772618/

You and yours haven’t even found a gene. It is a FACT that the environment alters brain structure.

“And even if they could, it doesn’t prove the gains made in chess TRANSFER to other domains.”

They don’t need to.

If society is a game that relies on 5-6 skills that IQ tests generally test, then becoming good at that game will a) translate to being very successful in that society and b) doing well on IQ tests based on that game.

As for Escalante, a rebuttal was offered here:

Terrible skepticism for its own sake rebuttal. The kids went on to be be overachieving superstars in college.

We do see secular gains, even in highly g-loaded tests. But when you correlate inbreeding depression scores, g-loadings on WISC-R and -III, B/W differences, heritability, and secular gains in a bunch of different populations, you find two big components— into the second go the secular gains, and into the first goes all the other stuff. Though we see gains on Raven’s and the Weschler (probably mostly reflecting increased test familiarity and ease with abstract visual culture &c.), they appear to come in inverse proportion to the g-loadings of the items on those tests.

Fundamentally, though, if secular gains imply that IQ is a statistical artifact, it seems strange that it should predict outcomes so well in any given year. Even though our grandparents’ generation scored perhaps more than 1 sigma lower overall, people who scored 1 sigma below average on a test normed for 1945 still tended to encounter the kinds of problems associated with their counterparts today.

You wanted to isolate the test to one test and then remove all possible latent constructs measured by the test such as FIQ and ‘g.’ In that context, there is no g-loading because you have removed the context in which the test can be g-loaded. All it is now is a skill subtest.

I didn’t want to remove the latent constructs, but the reality is that IQ tests don’t measure g directly, they just measure a performance that is highly correlated with g, and that performance can be observed on an interval scale. Now obviously if people improve their performance on the specific test through practice, unusual study techniques etc, it will no longer be g loaded, and so a different cognitive performance will have to be observed on an interval scale.

Citing to multiple psychologists is evidence that a majority support a certain view.

That’s like saying “citing multiple people who are billionaires is evidence that most people have a billion dollars.” It’s a non sequitor.

Patently false.

Seems mostly true. Fluid tests in particular depend on the fact that almost no one prepares for them. When people practice them, the g loading plummets.

In your opinion. But if SLODR is true, then g-loaded tests explain less and less of the variance in IQ as one moves to the right.

If that were the case the curving would only be expected at the high end, but the scatter plot shows curving at both ends, suggesting it’s caused by ceiling and floor effects, in my opinion.

The aspects of it connected with intelligence are a giant question mark wrt “genetic reasons,” and seeing as how the only genes with replicated effect are mutations that cause fatal brain shrinkage and we know for a fact that it is plastic…

Aside from some brief interest in microcephalin, few people are looking for brain size genes so why would they find them?

Everything is plastic, so saying it’s plastic means nothing unless you know the degree of plasticity. At Robert Lindsay’s blog I cited a study where the researchers actually concluded that in adoption, height showed more plasticity than brain size. You dismissed it because it was based on kids, but that’s precisely where you’d expect to see the most plasticity and they found none.

You can try to divorce brain size from intelligence, but as we evolved from ape intelligence to human intelligence, brain size nearly quadrupled, so brain size was extremely selected for. If your argument is that extreme selection for intelligence means intelligence has minimal genetic variability, then the enormous variability in brain size suggests there’s something wrong with your argument, because the two traits are analogous.

Sure pp “Evidence to date suggests that both brief and extensive exposure to video-game play can result in a broad range of enhancements to various cognitive faculties that generalize beyond the original context.”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772618/
You and yours haven’t even found a gene. It is a FACT that the environment alters brain structure.

Vague claims about enhancements prove nothing. I’m aware of no evidence that video-games can improve overall brain size by even a tenth of a standard deviation, nor is there evidence they can significantly improve nerve conduction velocity, brain mylelination, brain glucose metabolism or any other major physiological cause of IQ differences.

It’s possible that video-games have some effect on IQ via brain properties that are not well researched..indeed the smartest person I’ve ever known was a huge believer in the benefits of chronometric brain games…,but virtually all of the known brain properties that cause IQ seem to be about as immutable as height, as far as I know.

They don’t need to.
If society is a game that relies on 5-6 skills that IQ tests generally test, then becoming good at that game will a) translate to being very successful in that society and b) doing well on IQ tests based on that game.

No one disputes that education has benefits, but that’s not the same as making folks smarter

Then the weaknesses re: it being an interval scale apply. The relationship to both IQ and ‘g’ is not perfect, nor is it direct, and nor does a normal distribution of the test score mean that the latent construct of intelligence/’g’ is so.

The only way you evade those valid critiques of intervality is to reduce the trait to the test itself and to say things like “we’re not talking about the latent trait,” which renders every single question trivial.

Now obviously

Not obvious at all. It’s only if you make several assumptions about ‘g.’

It’s a non sequitor.

Wrong. Thinking X or Y is “weak” evidence != non-sequitur. As a matter of induction, knowing that several individuals in group X believe Y tends to make the probability of a ‘majority of individuals in group X believe Y’ go up, not down, and it’s not neutral.

And your analogy is also inapt. It’d be ‘citing to multiple billionaires shows that a majority of billionaires believe this.’

When textbooks in use say “IQ is another ordinal scale, although there are some researchers who consider an interval scale,” http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/ch3.pdf, that suggests most psychologists believe it is an ordinal scale.

Seems mostly true

Yes, a rich kid from Manhattan and a poor hillbilly put in ‘the same effort’ at getting better on the skills measured by the test. Oh wait…

If that were the case the curving would only be expected at the high end

The scatter plot with the most data points shows the exact curve one would expect.

You dismissed it because it was based on kids, but that’s precisely where you’d expect to see the most plasticity and they found none.

More reason than that. The time period was only 3 years (4 and 7 yo), there was no measure of parental IQ, and there was selective placement based on IQ, too.

brain size nearly quadrupled,

But EQ only significantly jumped twice. The rest of the increases seem to be associated with hominids getting taller.

then the enormous variability in brain size suggests

Not if what was selected for was specialization and the ability to specialize. We would expect learning to have an effect on the brain and we would also expect to see phenotypical differences in brain size and structure. Brain size itself != intelligence.

Vague claims about enhancements prove nothing

Sure. They have been found to increase SRT and CRT, increase IQ performance, increase brain size, but this “means nothing.” Meanwhile, zero genes have been found.

Learning does have an effect on those; a learning brain is an increasingly efficient brain.

that’s not the same as making folks smarter

According to what?
The only way we can assess ‘intelligence’ is performance on X skill or Y skill (or several skills at once). The only way you can say what you said is to make several tenuous assumptions.

Then the weaknesses re: it being an interval scale apply. The relationship to both IQ and ‘g’ is not perfect, nor is it direct, and nor does a normal distribution of the test score mean that the latent construct of intelligence/’g’ is so.
The only way you evade those valid critiques of intervality is to reduce the trait to the test itself and to say things like “we’re not talking about the latent trait,” which renders every single question trivial.

Your claim was that IQ was not an interval scale. It is you who tried to evade your mistake by shifting the goal posts to claim IQ is not interval scale with respect to g. But IQ is not a measure of g, but rather a measure of performance on g loaded tasks, And said performance is anything but trivial, because performance on IQ tests has great predictive value.

.Wrong. Thinking X or Y is “weak” evidence != non-sequitur. As a matter of induction, knowing that several individuals in group X believe Y tends to make the probability of a ‘majority of individuals in group X believe Y’ go up, not down, and it’s not neutral.

LOL! By Swank’s logic the probability that most Western scientists living today believe in creationism must be through the roof. Look at all the scientists known to believe in creationism:

When textbooks in use say “IQ is another ordinal scale, although there are some researchers who consider an interval scale,” http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/ch3.pdf, that suggests most psychologists believe it is an ordinal scale.

Some researchers != a minority of researchers

Yes, a rich kid from Manhattan and a poor hillbilly put in ‘the same effort’ at getting better on the skills measured by the test. Oh wait…

Putting in different effort at acquiring academic skills != putting in different effort at acquiring IQ “skills” which are largely designed to reflect innate abilities uncontaminated by academic experience. Of course few IQ tests come close to that ideal, but since almost everyone in North America is hyper-educated or has the opportunity to be so, either formally or otherwise, most of the remaining differences in academic experience seem to have diminishing returns on IQ performance,

The scatter plot with the most data points shows the exact curve one would expect.

From floor and ceiling effects

More reason than that. The time period was only 3 years (4 and 7 yo), there was no measure of parental IQ, and there was selective placement based on IQ, too.

Three years was long enough to find adoption benefited height, so that seems to demolish your argument that height is significantly less plastic than brain size. Now I haven’t read the study so I can’t speak directly to the relevance of your other criticisms, but the actual scientists who conducted the study concluded: …the better socioeconomic environment provided by adoptive parents is favorable for an adopted child’s physical growth (height and weight) and academic achievement but has no influence on the child’s head circumference and intellectual capacity, both of which require a genetic influence. (Fisch,Bilek, Deinard, & Chang, 1976)

But EQ only significantly jumped twice. The rest of the increases seem to be associated with hominids getting taller.

Citation?

Not if what was selected for was specialization and the ability to specialize. We would expect learning to have an effect on the brain and we would also expect to see phenotypical differences in brain size

Sure. They have been found to increase SRT and CRT, increase IQ performance, increase brain size, but this “means nothing.

Increased Simple Reaction Time and Choice Reaction Time by how much? You keep repeating “it can increase” and I keep asking “by how much?” You don’t get to evade the tough questions by repetitively filibustering. You’re not Donald Trump. 🙂

And increase in SRT and CRT means little unless subjects are given the requisite practice trials before and after the intervention.

” Meanwhile, zero genes have been found.

That’s because the genetic variants are of such small effects that you need a sample size of about one million people to detect them with any kind of statistical certainty, according to Steve Hsu, but unpublished research reviewed by Mr. Hsu suggests that that roughly 10,000 moderately rare causal variants are responsible for normal population variation in performance on highly g loaded cognitive tests

Learning does have an effect on those; a learning brain is an increasingly efficient brain.

More feel-good claims with no hard effect sizes to back them up.

According to what?
The only way we can assess ‘intelligence’ is performance on X skill or Y skill (or several skills at once). The only way you can say what you said is to make several tenuous assumptions.

People who have been trained to improve their performance on tests of ability X, don’t seem to improve their performance on tests of ability Y, so the training only seemed to improve a narrow domain, rather than the cognitive ability to adapt to new requirements.

I didn’t try to evade anything. I talked about ‘IQ,’ which is a score comprised of scores on several subtests. I used evidence re: ‘g’ to comment on a test’s relationship with ‘IQ.’ It is you who stated that you did not want to talk about the other traits measured by a subtest. IQ != raw number of words someone knows. IQ is a measure of ‘overall’ ability on many subtests. You kept wanting to discuss the relationship between a subtest raw score and ‘IQ,’ which is imperfect and consistent with a correlation that is different in each ‘IQ’ group because of the evidence I offered wrt to ‘g.’ Either you want to talk about the subtest by itself, in which case the entire issue becomes trivial. Or you want to talk about its relationships with other constructs of interest, in which case the critiques apply.

Look at all the scientists known to believe in creationism:

A long list does increase the probability that such is true. One can argue that it is weak evidence or that other facts decrease the probability. One thing is for sure: it is not a non-sequitur, especially because we are engaged in inductive reasoning.

And I cited several textbooks that are in use at Universities.

Some researchers != a minority of researchers

Yes, the book stated X is the case but then included the word ‘some’ to include the possibility that maybe ‘most’ believe that the opposite is true. Absurd.

From floor and ceiling effects

Which is only your opinion. The graph with the most data points has a steep sloping line in the lower part of the distribution which curves into the upper part, which is not consistent with what you are saying.

which are largely designed to reflect innate abilities

Yes, repeat the unsubstantiated party line that there is substantial difference between the two.

since almost everyone in North America is hyper-educated or has the opportunity to be so

Yes, the education experience in Manhattan and in the inner city are nearly unity. Of course.

that seems to demolish your argument that height is significantly less plastic than brain size.

Only to the insane. It is a FACT that the brain is plastic at any age. Height is NOT.

You don’t get to evade the tough questions by repetitively filibustering.

I don’t have to go any further: I have something. You have nothing — no genes, no nothing that isn’t hopelessly confounded. That’s enough.

That’s because the genetic variants are of such small effects

In other words, one needs more faith.

More feel-good claims with no hard effect sizes to back them up.

Once again, something > nothing.

so the training only seemed to improve a narrow domain, rather than the cognitive ability to adapt to new requirements.

Even if that’s true, if the game is 5 skills, then becoming good at those 5 skills will equip one to handle the game. And it likely is not true, from the video game research.

I didn’t try to evade anything. I talked about ‘IQ,’ which is a score comprised of scores on several subtests. I used evidence re: ‘g’ to comment on a test’s relationship with ‘IQ.’ It is you who stated that you did not want to talk about the other traits measured by a subtest. IQ != raw number of words someone knows. IQ is a measure of ‘overall’ ability on many subtests.

Not all IQ tests use multiple subtests. Some just use a single very g loaded type of test, and I focused on those to simplify the argument. But even IQ obtained from an IQ test with multiple subtests is an interval scale if performance on each of the subtests is measured with equal intervals which can be easily done (i.e. number of words one can define, number of digits one can remember, number of symbols one can write in 90 seconds etc)

A long list does increase the probability that such is true. One can argue that it is weak evidence

Thank you. Next.

Which is only your opinion. The graph with the most data points has a steep sloping line in the lower part of the distribution which curves into the upper part, which is not consistent with what you are saying.

It curves at both ends, consistent with floor and ceiling effects

Yes, the education experience in Manhattan and in the inner city are nearly unity. Of course.

Manhattan and inner cities are extremes. I don’t think the vast majority of Americans differ enough in their intellectual opportunities for cultural experience to be a significant source of the variation in adult U.S. IQ scores, especially since some IQ tests go out of their way to minimize such biases, and maximize NOVEL problem solving (to the extent that can be done).

Only to the insane. It is a FACT that the brain is plastic at any age. Height is NOT.

Brain plasticity != brain size plasticity

Brain plasticity != novel problem solving plasticity

I don’t have to go any further: I have something. You have nothing — no genes, no nothing that isn’t hopelessly confounded.

Nothing except countless studies claiming IQ is anywhere from 50% to 80% heritable and geneticists in the field of IQ research claiming normal IQ variation has 10,000 causal genetic variants, and the discovery of a gene for Alzheimer’s which has a large effect on normal IQ variation in the elderly.

You on the other hand have little more than vague un-quantifiable claims about mental stimulation improving the brain and cognition.

Even if that’s true, if the game is 5 skills, then becoming good at those 5 skills will equip one to handle the game.

The problem is the rules of the game are constantly changing.

And it likely is not true, from the video game research.

The video game research is interesting and shouldn’t be dismissed, but it suffers from failure to control for placebo effects and acquired strategies which artificially improve performance without improving novel problem solving:

And with multiple subtests the problem becomes that those subtests explain less of the variance as one moves to the right of the distribution.

Thank you. Next.

You admit is not a non-sequitur and that your argument was that you consider it weak evidence, to which I point to the textbooks.

It curves at both ends

No, the slope is steep at the left and very gradual at the right.

I don’t think the vast majority of Americans differ enough in their intellectual opportunities for cultural experience to be a significant source of the variation in adult U.S. IQ scores,

Yes everyone must be imagining the documented and pervasive disparities in the U.S. educational system or in different cultural incentives (i.e. which games are worth playing). A hillbilly doesn’t even speak the same language as a Massachusetts yank.

Brain plasticity != brain size plasticity

I have cited several studies regarding brain size.

the discovery of a gene for Alzheimer’s which has a large effect on normal IQ variation in the elderly.

Until that gene shows up among those found in the search for genes responsible for normal variation in the general populous, it’s just a gene for Alzheimer’s.

50% to 80% heritable

= hopelessly confounded.

You on the other hand

Have the field agreeing with me about IQ as an ordinal scale, and have several documented effects of environment on brain structure and size. And generally, I have basic principles of evolution on my side: genetic height differences between the races are hypothesized at around 1 SD, so we would not expect genetic intelligence differences to be the same. The same “geneticist” (he isn’t a geneticist, he’s a physicist) stated IQ is 20x more complicated than height which makes anything even approaching 1 SD of difference even less likely.

The problem is the rules of the game are constantly changing.

The target moves but not that much. And not much within a single generation.

but it suffers

But, unlike the fruitless search for IQ genes, these effects continue to be replicated — even after the article you cited appeared. Here’s an example:

A test proves it’s g loading by being administered with other tests, but once the g loading has been established, it can be administered on it own as a highly g loaded unidimensional test..

And with multiple subtests the problem becomes that those subtests explain less of the variance as one moves to the right of the distribution

Four of the five scatter plots I showed contradict that theory, and the fifth is ambiguous.

And even if that is true, most people aren’t at the far right of the curve so it’s irrelevant.

And even if subtest intercorrelation becomes weak, being good at each mental ability is valuable in its own right.
.
You admit is not a non-sequitur

No it is clearly a non-sequitor to think that naming several experts who believe X is evidence that MOST experts believe X. I just got tired of expecting you to admit it .

to which I point to the textbooks.

A textbook which never claimed most psychologists agree with you and is not in the position to know, and even if they did, I’ve clearly demonstrated that performance on many g loaded tasks can be measured on an interval scale,

,
Yes everyone must be imagining the documented and pervasive disparities in the U.S. educational system or in different cultural incentives (i.e. which games are worth playing). A hillbilly doesn’t even speak the same language as a Massachusetts yank.

Then find me a single adoption study show large adoption effects on adult IQ. Just one will suffice.

I have cited several studies regarding brain size.

And yet none of them reported any significant effects on overall brain size.

.
Until that gene shows up among those found in the search for genes responsible for normal variation in the general populous, it’s just a gene for Alzheimer’s.

Alzheimers is a large percent of elderly IQ variation

= hopelessly confounded.

Yes, I’m sure you know more than Steve Hsu, a genetic researcher so prestigious President Obama wanted to meet him

and have several documented effects of environment on brain structure and size.

Several documented effects that report no significant effect on overall brain size

And generally, I have basic principles of evolution on my side: genetic height differences between the races are hypothesized at around 1 SD, so we would not expect genetic intelligence differences to be the same

Except some ethnic groups vary by nearly 5 SD, even living in the same region of the World.

The same “geneticist” (he isn’t a geneticist, he’s a physicist) stated IQ is 20x more complicated than height which makes anything even approaching 1 SD of difference even less likely.

He’s a physicist in charge of the World’s leading research into the genetics of IQ, and he believes most of the variation in IQ is caused by 10,000 genetic variants.

But, unlike the fruitless search for IQ genes, these effects continue to be replicated — even after the article you cited appeared. Here’s an example:
“While previous studies have shown differences in brain structure of video gamers, the present study can demonstrate the direct causal link between video gaming and a volumetric brain increase. This proves that specific brain regions can be trained by means of video games,” says Kühn.”

And yet still no significant gains in overall brain size are reported. You would think at least one study would find some just by accident.

It’s not part of normal variation in IQ. It’s a disorder that affects other systems which themselves affect IQ to the same degree a severe disorder does.

Except some ethnic groups vary by nearly 5 SD, even living in the same region of the World.

Except you know I am right so you can’t talk about “races.” You need to talk about much smaller groups. But even with 5 sds, going with the generous underestimation of 20x more complicated leads to around .2 SDs in “intelligence” representing the largest genetic gap between human groups.

Which would further make sense in light of what we know about humans and humans generally being genetically homogeneous.

he believes

I’m aware that there are many true believers among the BG crowd. No replication yet.

You would think at least one study would find some just by accident.

Doesn’t really matter. Significant changes in task performance occurred in response to a stimulus, and those significant performance changes were accompanied by changes in brain structure and size….which is consistent with what I said earlier: slight increases may translate to large performance increases.

But it’s not a measure of g, it’s a measure of performance on (a) highly g loaded task(s)

If you use it to assess the raw ‘skill’ itself, then the question becomes meaningless wrt to ‘gaps.’

If raw skills are g loaded, they’re meaningful.

The one with the most data points supports me.

The preponderance of evidence debunks you, even under generous interpretations.

As a matter of inductive reasoning, it “clearly” is not

That’s nice. Wake me up when you want to say something that advances the discussion.

.Books, plural, for one. And now you are arguing that textbooks do not actively seek out general consensus. Sure.

Yawn

Even the MTRAS supports this conclusion according to Scarr et al.

But the effect of adoption diminishes with age.and appears to be close to zero by later adulthood, as far as I know.

It’s not part of normal variation in IQ. It’s a disorder that affects other systems which themselves affect IQ to the same degree a severe disorder does.

By age 85+,, nearly a third of U.S. whites and more than half of all African Americans have Alzheimer’s so it’s clearly a source of normal cognitive variation in the elderly.

Except you know I am right so you can’t talk about “races.” You need to talk about much smaller groups.

But you deny significant genetic IQ differences between both large generic races, and small precise races. If you concede differences between small groups, I’ll start talking about big groups

But even with 5 sds, going with the generous underestimation of 20x more complicated leads to around .2 SDs in “intelligence” representing the largest genetic gap between human groups

According to Steve Hsu, variation in height and IQ are both caused by about 10,000 genetic variants, so why exactly would it be anywhere near 20 times harder to select for IQ than for height?

I’m aware that there are many true believers among the BG crowd. No replication yet.

Except in the elderly (see above). And failure to find specific genes != failure to estimate the number of genetic variants.

Doesn’t really matter. Significant changes in task performance occurred in response to a stimulus, and those significant performance changes were accompanied by changes in brain structure and size

Significant changes in performance in specific domains, even if they’re useful, do not equate to gains in intelligence, which is seen as a GENERAL ability.

Changes in brain size do not prove overall brain size is significantly plastic unless said changes are large. Even height can be increased to some degree by certain exercise, but you don’t consider it to be plastic.

This is only true if you are comparing it to other tests, in which case the critiques apply. If you are not, then there is no ‘g-loading.’

The preponderance of evidence debunks you

The textbooks etc. must be figments of my imagination. As usual, you essentially have nothing, so you rely on unbacked assertion.

Yawn

An example of the above.

it’s clearly a source of normal cognitive variation in the elderly.

You have no genes linking those of alzheimer’s to ‘normal cognitive variation.’ As of right now there is no overlap. And you’re grasping at straws attempting to characterize a disorder affecting people at 80 as being responsible for cognitive variation we see during most of an individual’s adult life. Yawn indeed.

If you concede

Why? You certainly haven’t shown any reason to believe they exist to the extent you believe they do.

near 20 times harder to select for IQ than for height?

Not even the argument. Intelligence has been more selected for than height AND has a beneficial mutation rate much lower than height, which = much much less genetic variation. 20x more complicated is at best an underestated estimate: there is only one human brain in the universe; there are many bigger skeletons.

And failure to find specific genes != failure to estimate the number of genetic variants.

I never equated them. No genes have been replicated for behavior in the normal range for any trait. That is a FACT.

even if they’re useful, do not equate to gains in intelligence, which is seen as a GENERAL ability

“video-game play can result in a broad range of enhancements to various cognitive faculties that generalize beyond the original context.”

Videogames have decreased SRT. And that’s just an example of ONE environmental stimulus that has an impact.

This is only true if you are comparing it to other tests, in which case the critiques apply.

The task has already been compared to other tasks; that’s how we know it’s g loaded. And all your critiques have been rebutted.

The textbooks etc. must be figments of my imagination. As usual, you essentially have nothing, so you rely on unbacked assertion.

No it’s you who is relying on unbacked unclarified assertions of some textbook(s). I have provided actual data in the form of five scatter plots, four of which debunk you, and the fifth is open to interpretation. .

.And you’re grasping at straws attempting to characterize a disorder affecting people at 80 as being responsible for cognitive variation we see during most of an individual’s adult life

I don’t have to show it’s responsible for cognitive variation during most of an individual’s life; because IQ is a measure of relative cognitive ability at a specific age. I am saying that Alzheimer’s genetic variants affect normal IQ variation in the very old. This debunks your claim that they’ve found no genetic variants affecting the normal range, because Alzheimer’s is indeed normal for people who are extremely old.

Not even the argument. Intelligence has been more selected for than height AND has a beneficial mutation rate much lower than height, which = much much less genetic variation.

But Steve Hsu says variation in both is more than 50% caused by about 10,000 genetic variants. What do you know that he doesn’t?

Videogames have decreased SRT. And that’s just an example of ONE environmental stimulus that has an impact.

An effect != a significant effect. You don’t even know if the requisite practice trials were administered before and after the experimental treatment.

The task has already been compared to other tasks; that’s how we know it’s g loaded. And all your critiques have been rebutted.

If you are using these ‘raw skills’ tests as measurements of ‘g,’ then the critiques apply that vitiate the entire notion of an interval scale. You can’t use it as a metric of g-loading while simultaneously saying “[b]ut we’re not talking about the latent trait.”

I have provided actual data in the form of five scatter plots, four of which debunk you, and the fifth is open to interpretation.

The second scatterplot is meaningless because it’s a prediction-to-IQ. The third scatterplot is extremely ambiguous. The first is NOT open to interpretation and showcases the EXACT relationship I say it does. Further, the first has the MOST data points and is the most direct comparison: raw subtests to overall IQ.

No it’s you who is relying on unbacked unclarified assertions of some textbook(s).

You have nothing.

This debunks your claim that they’ve found no genetic variants

It does not because ZERO of the variants found for Alzheimer’s have been replicated and found in studies searching for IQ. Further, it is a disorder that is not unlike mental retardation that has outsize affects and reduces mental functioning fast. Grasping. At. Straws.

What do you know that he doesn’t?

He and I both know that no replicated genetic variants linked to IQ have been found. I quoted a neurogeneticist that stated point-blank the entire idea is unproven.

If you are using these ‘raw skills’ tests as measurements of ‘g,’ then the critiques apply that vitiate the entire notion of an interval scale. You can’t use it as a metric of g-loading while simultaneously saying “[b]ut we’re not talking about the latent trait.”

But IQ is not viewed as a direct measure of g; it’s just a very good proxy for g. What it directly measures is performance on highly g loaded mental tasks, and said performance can be measured on an interval scale.

The second scatterplot is meaningless because it’s a prediction-to-IQ.

That doesn’t make it meaningless, Swank.

The third scatterplot is extremely ambiguous. The first is NOT open to interpretation and showcases the EXACT relationship I say it does.

It shows curving at both extremes Swank, not just the high extreme as your claims would predict. All you can cling to is that the curving is more abrupt at one end than the other, but that only proves the floor effect is stronger than the ceiling effect.

I noticed you ignored this one:

And this one,

And here are seven more scatter plots showing various measures of IQ enjoy a linear relationship with various criteria:

And even if you were right about IQ having a non-linear relationship with other interval variables, it wouldn’t change the fact that performance on g loaded cognitive tasks can be measured on an interval scale: total vocabulary, number of digits repeated, number of symbols written in 90 seconds, number of words that start with the letter F one can think up in 60 seconds etc.

It does not because ZERO of the variants found for Alzheimer’s have been replicated

The relationship between Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has been replicated repeatedly.

and found in studies searching for IQ.

Alzheimer’s directly causes low IQ among a huge percentage of the very old. Finding genes for Alzheimer’s is the equivalent of finding IQ genes in the elderly.

Further, it is a disorder that is not unlike mental retardation that has outsize affects and reduces mental functioning fast.

Irrelevant. Your argument was that no genes for normal IQ variation have been found. You need to amend that to “no genes for normal non-elderly IQ variation have been found.”

He and I both know that no replicated genetic variants linked to IQ have been found.

No replicated genetic variants DIRECTLY linked to NORMAL IQ variation in YOUNG people have been found, but it has been found in very old people. FACT!

I quoted a neurogeneticist that stated point-blank the entire idea is unproven.

And I quoted the leading scientist who is actually doing real research in the field and he says there are about 10,000 genetic variants that cause normal IQ variation.

The raw scores are only useful to the extent they approximate IQ and IQ is only useful (to heredetarians) to the extent it approximates ‘g.’ If you are talking about raw scores as raw scores, then the gaps and the entire discussion is uninteresting and trivial. If you are talking about the raw scores as proxies for IQ and g (which you are), then the above critiques apply.

That doesn’t make it meaningless, Swank.

Assuming a linear relationship and predicting IQ from that relationship does make it meaningless for purposes of this discussion.

It shows curving at both extremes Swank,

As I would predict. The slope is steep on the left and tapers at the right. That means the relationship changes throughout the range = what I would predict. And that is the most analogous graph because the SAT is a battery of raw subtests.

And here are seven more scatter plots

So your plot with the most data points is the plot of ‘g’ versus total achievement. In which case, the redirect is to SLODR, which has been repeatedly found.

The relationship between Apolipoprotein E

Here is what I wrote: ” have been replicated and found in studies searching for IQ.” As in, in studies where IQ is the phenotype of interest, the genes found for Alzheimer’s have not appeared. They haven’t. FACT.

Your argument was that no genes for normal IQ variation have been found. You need to amend that to

No, I don’t. By your silly standards mental retardation genes also are genes for “normal IQ variation,” because during early life the disorder isn’t detected and so contributes to ‘normal IQ’ variation. It doesn’t contribute to normal variation, period. It’s a disorder that kills people within about 4 years and has outsize effects on IQ very quickly. It’s not ‘normal variation.’

And so I ask again, what do you know that Hsu doesn’t?

We both know that nothing has been published by Hsu.
We both know that IQ is far more complicated than height according to even him….consistent with everything I have said about it.

The raw scores are only useful to the extent they approximate IQ and IQ is only useful (to heredetarians) to the extent it approximates ‘g.’ If you are talking about raw scores as raw scores, then the gaps and the entire discussion is uninteresting and trivial. If you are talking about the raw scores as proxies for IQ and g (which you are), then the above critiques apply.

None of your critiques apply, Swank. The raw scores, whether from a single subtest, or all the subtests aggregated, are performance on highly g loaded tasks, which can be measured on an interval scale. They are interesting precisely because they are g loaded. Your critiques are irrelevant because by measuring performance on g loaded tasks, and not g directly, psychologists get both the concreteness of an interval scale and virtually the same predictive power of g itself

As I would predict. The slope is steep on the left and tapers at the right. That means the relationship changes throughout the range = what I would predict.

It’s what a strong floor effect and weak ceiling effect would predict. And the fact that you keep perseverating over one scatter plot and ignoring a dozen others makes it impossible to advance the discussion.

And even if the plots did show non-linear relationships, it wouldn’t change the fact that IQ can be measured on an interval scale, anymore than the fact that height has a non-linear relationship with attractiveness changes the fact that height is an interval scale.

And that is the most analogous graph because the SAT is a battery of raw subtests.

Of the 14 graphs I posted in this discussion, many are based on a battery of subtests. so that argument is disingenuous.

So your plot with the most data points is the plot of ‘g’ versus total achievement. In which case, the redirect is to SLODR, which has been repeatedly found.

All of the plots are of performance on g loaded tasks and all of them show linear relationships with external criteria through virtually the full range of the test.

No, I don’t. By your silly standards mental retardation genes also are genes for “normal IQ variation,” because during early life the disorder isn’t detected and so contributes to ‘normal IQ’ variation.

Actually organic retardation is detected in early life. It’s familial retardation which tends to go under the radar until school age. And the reason retardation is abnormal is because it’s rare, afflicting only 2% of Americans, and organic retardation is even much more rare than that. By contrast Alzheimer’s is extremely common in the very old. To call something that is extremely common abnormal is to contradict yourself.

We both know that nothing has been published by Hsu

He published what he learned from the unpublished data in a peer reviewed academic genetic journal:

I describe some unpublished results concerning the genetic architecture of height and cognitive ability, which suggest that roughly 10k moderately rare causal variants of mostly negative effect are responsible for normal population variation.

A test’s g-loading depends on its correlation with other subtests. We know that this correlation drops and that any one tests explain less of the variance in IQ scores throughout the range of IQ. It is called SLODR. So, if you are using the test as a proxy for g, which is what you just said (“measuring performance on g loaded tasks, and not g directly,”(though g is never measured directly anyway)), then it is not an interval scale for ‘g’ or ‘FIQ.’

you keep perseverating over one scatter plot

Because the one scatter plot has the most data points. Most of your recent scatterplots are not about raw subtests vs. IQ or g. they are about other traits and IQ, etc. etc: red herrings. The only new and relevant scatterplot you brought up is countered by the well-replicated finding of SLODR. So the best scatterplot supports me.

By contrast Alzheimer’s

Affects about “2% of Americans” at a given time, just like retardation. It’s a disorder that does not contribute to “normal IQ variation.”

Actually organic retardation is detected in early life

By genetic identification, not by identification of “IQ deficiency.” In many cases it shows up later; even individuals with Down syndrome often exhibit only mild retardation.

You say: “They are interesting precisely because they are g loaded.”
A test’s g-loading depends on its correlation with other subtests. We know that this correlation drops and that any one tests explain less of the variance in IQ scores throughout the range of IQ. It is called SLODR. So, if you are using the test as a proxy for g, which is what you just said (“measuring performance on g loaded tasks, and not g directly,”(though g is never measured directly anyway)), then it is not an interval scale for ‘g’ or ‘FIQ.’

It’s not an interval scale for g, because as I’ve told you 100 times, IQ tests are not direct measures of g, they’re measures of performance on g loaded tasks.

Now if you believe SLODR is both real and significant, then it simply implies that there’s an inherit ceiling on performance on g loaded tasks, because above a certain level, said tasks will stop being significantly g loaded. But that has nothing to do with whether it’s an interval scale or not. It has to do with how far the scale extends.

Because the one scatter plot has the most data points. Most of your recent scatterplots are not about raw subtests vs. IQ or g. they are about other traits and IQ, etc. etc: red herrings. The only new and relevant scatterplot you brought up is countered by the well-replicated finding of SLODR. So the best scatterplot supports me

You seriously need to work on making your arguments less convoluted, especially if you have plans to be a lawyer, who need to communicate clearly and simply with judges, juries and clients. You also deflect attention from your good arguments by pursuing so many bad ones.
.
Affects about “2% of Americans” at a given time, just like retardation. It’s a disorder that does not contribute to “normal IQ variation.”

Alzheimer’s is indeed normal variation in the elderly, afflicting about a third of American whites and over half of black Americans aged 85+. By contrast retardation afflicts only 2% of Americans in every age, by definition those scoring more than two standard deviations below the mean of their age, which is the lower limit for normal variation.

Rember IQ tests are normed for age, so normal variation is relative to one’s age group.

you admit “It’s not an interval scale for g,” and you also admit that “IQ tests are measures of performance on g loaded tasks.” If the g-loading of a test changes throughout the range of performance, it means that the relationship of that raw subtest score to all other tests in a battery and by extension, FIQ changes throughout the range. your main evidence in support of IQ as an interval scale was that the raw subtests can be given as interval scales and have normal distributions and correlate with FIQ. But if that correlation changes throughout the range, then that raw subtest as a proxy for IQ is subject to all the other criticisms.

you only avoid them by reducing “IQ” to literally “words you know,” etc. or in other words, any particular subtest alone, limiting the measure to the point of triviality.

You seriously need to work on

no thanks. it’s more fun to watch people call what I say nonsense then outright present it as their own a few months later.

Alzheimer’s is indeed normal variation in the elderly

sure, a well-recognized cognitive disorder contributes to normal cognitive variation. we can agree to disagree at this point because we’ve reached the usual impasse.

you admit “It’s not an interval scale for g,” and you also admit that “IQ tests are measures of performance on g loaded tasks.” If the g-loading of a test changes throughout the range of performance, it means that the relationship of that raw subtest score to all other tests in a battery and by extension, FIQ changes throughout the range.

And your point is?

your main evidence in support of IQ as an interval scale was that the raw subtests can be given as interval scales and have normal distributions and correlate with FIQ.

No, not correlates with Full-scale IQ, directly converts to an IQ score. That is to say, the raw performance on the test can be directly converted to IQ via the following formula:

But if that correlation changes throughout the range, then that raw subtest as a proxy for IQ is subject to all the other criticisms.

It’s not a proxy for IQ, it is the IQ in raw form.

you only avoid them by reducing “IQ” to literally “words you know,” etc. or in other words, any particular subtest alone, limiting the measure to the point of triviality.

It’s not trivial if it’s substantially g loaded. Believers in Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns can claim the g loading eventually becomes trivial, but that just puts a ceiling on one’s ability to measure performance of highly g loaded tasks, it doesn’t stop it from being an interval scale in the range where the trait exists..

no thanks. it’s more fun to watch people call what I say nonsense then outright present it as their own a few months later.

It’s called evolving, Swank. And I’ve given you great credit for your idea that ethnic loyalty evolved as a byproduct of close kin selection, though at first I failed to recognize your contribution because you had framed ethnic favoritism as a maladaptive side effect, while I came to see it as an adaptive side effect….but still, your very idea that it was a side-effect at all was brilliant, so a sincere congratulations.

And that’s my point. You have very good arguments, but you deflect attention from them with too many side arguments that waste time.

sure, a well-recognized cognitive disorder contributes to normal cognitive variation. we can agree to disagree at this point because we’ve reached the usual impasse.

All forms of stupidity are ultimately disorders, but Alzheimers is so incredibly common in the super old that my opinion, it should count as normal variation at that age.

Swank, this paper about neuroscientific correlates for g and biological basis for IQ in the brain seems to throw a wrench into your argument, any comments?

“Quantitative genetic studies have established that there are additive genetic contributions to different aspects of cognitive ability — especially general intelligence”

” Structural and functional brain-imaging studies have identified differences in brain pathways, especially parieto-frontal pathways, that contribute to intelligence differences. There is also evidence that brain efficiency correlates positively with intelligence.”

Thanks to a Jewish queen, pervert who likes dicks, that you and your troupe was not genetically eliminated.

A black with predispositions to crime, working every day, and has five children, is less useful to society than a person like me.

His work can be millimeter useful for the system in the short term, the same system to pretend like you guys, but their genetic legacy of primate, will be sufficient to reduce the genetic macro-stability of populations that produce men capable of inventing technological toy and the language you are using, that can think beyond the navel.

It must be pretty dumb like you to believe all sorts of misconceptions and to build a highly contradictory personal ideology.

It comes down to lies, misinterpretations of the issues that are discussing here and ad hominem.

If on the first review of this’ debate ”, you had contained his wild animal instinct that is, I would have demoted me and even could have had a pleasant discussion. But the jungle did not leave you.

I will repeat for the last time, the truisms here. Between having a population of 15% of homosexuals as in San Francisco, to have a factory of problems called pregnant black women, on average, there is no doubt that the really smart people will prefer for one that does not reproduce and still practices less crime on average, the one that works like a plague, eating away all the good things other people have built.

Understand and respect the natural human sexual variation and treat it in a less negative ” emotional ”, it is something primitive minds can not accept, because it is based on altruism extension beyond the genes themselves. And unfortunately, most of these people will also extend your kindness to those who don’t deserve it, like you.

Between being penetrated by two men from outsize penis (without a condom, to catch sexually transmitted diseases that the two black goofy caught) and pregnant her sister, Charlene, black dumb, and see my genes being transformed into pure trash, I prefer the first option, to see a retarded child who seems half-ape, acting clumsy way, early showing signs of inferiority, either in intelligence, creativity or character and call me ”daddy”.

Of course it’s rude of me, only to those who deserve it.

I prefer to keep my legacy to myself, die with me, as with many great they did something useful and great in the real world than to deceive others with their pseudo-genius.

Understand and respect the natural human sexual variation and treat it in a less negative ” emotional ”, it is something primitive minds can not accept, because it is based on altruism extension beyond the genes themselves. And unfortunately, most of these people will also extend your kindness to those who don’t deserve it, like you.

I’m not sure homosexuality (in males at least) can be considered “natural” given the strong evidence for its origins being pathogenic.

Between being penetrated by two men from outsize penis (without a condom, to catch sexually transmitted diseases that the two black goofy caught) and pregnant her sister, Charlene, black dumb, and see my genes being transformed into pure trash, I prefer the first option, to see a retarded child who seems half-ape, acting clumsy way, early showing signs of inferiority, either in intelligence, creativity or character and call me ”daddy”.

But at least, it is a positive sign that you guys are starting to understand that heritability estimated by twin studies does not describe a completely genetic reality.

In my opinion, the only meaningful information that twin studies give with respect to the heritability of IQ is that it increases with the degree of relatedness, however it does not allow any quantification of the genetic contribution to intelligence, especially when IQ itself is not an absolute value.

”I’m not sure homosexuality (in males at least) can be considered “natural” given the strong evidence for its origins being pathogenic.”

Probably the same for creativity, the same for sickle cell anemia heterozygotic advantages.

The term ”pathogen” seems to be little tendentious.

The human being is a partially random combination of biological variables (coevolutive microorganisms included) that are transmitted by their parents, directly or indirectly. My idea to explain the process of homosexuality (male, I never understand why the emphasis on male homosexuality … even if this theory was right, you guys make mistakes, since at the central explanation of this theory) occurs from a combination in which there is an relatively excessive coevolutionary microorganisms that are responsible for sexual desire, i.e., a normal biological configuration, there would be a neutralization of these microorganisms excesses. We are all female and male in different tons. Homossexual men would be more feminine, on average, precisely because of this non-neutralization of this microorganisms that in some way made a sexual female mindset.

Metaphorically speaking, you have a mechanism in normatives conditions, neutralizing the principle of gender confusion. it’s as if somehow, someone threw one screwdriver in this mechanism, making it imperfect.

Another possibility is that low birth weight can make many men, homosexuals, the idea of ” incomplete man ”, if men tend to be taller and physical strong than women, on average.

The pathogenic theory of exclusive homosexuality among men (sic !, only among them), was built based on studies of monozygotic twins in which there was a low ” heredity ” of concordance or shared-trait, based on a series of flawed assumptions as’ ‘monozygotic twins are perfect clones of each other’ ‘and’ ‘any trait can be passed directly to that can be considered normal’ ‘.

And today, I realized that the term heredity, may be being used lightly when it comes to sharing genetic analysis in monozygotic twins.

The concept of inheritance seems to be very clear. The fact of sharing homosexuality in monozygotic twins tend to be low, it does not mean that heredity is low, that is, the true heredity, conceptually speaking, between father and son. However, it is likely that the degree of heritability of any psychological trait by intergenerational transmission, aka, heredity, will be lower for any type, but not so when one considers the behavioral phenotype, i.e., the combination of psychological characteristics.

”Homosexuality is probably a tool of natural selection, reducing the reproductive success of the genetically unfit, hence improving humanity by not passing dysfuctional alleles.”

If it were we stop to think this way, then the black race should also be considered in this way, if people need to lie to themselves, to try to mitigate the massive dysfunctionality that this collectivity, on average, is steeped.

It may be partially true, but these narratives that are typical of evolutionary theorists, like ” there is a reproductive ” strategy ” ke r ” ‘, is a way to anthropomorphize natural processes that do not have a consciousness that decided it would be this or other way.

Homosexuality is the end of a spectrum within the sexual diversity, in fact, the true end of anormative sexual spectrum, would be the confusion of gender, resulting in transgenderism.

Most hbd’ers and critics to hbd are believers of Terman studies, where it was ‘proven’ that giftedness relates to a panacea of ” positive ” (quite contextual) features, psychological, cognitive and social.

However, in reality, termites that scored very high in cognitive tests were far more likely to lead social ‘dysfunctional’ lifes than termites that scored relatively high.

In today’s world, is confused with great frequency the terms giftedness and genius, which are not the same.

As I read the text of Lombroso, ” the talented knows how he did, the genius, did not know how. ”

I have the impression that this famous study of Lewis Terman, who hbd movement has used as a way to show that the ” intelligence ” (specifically their cognitive aspect, without taking into account the need of the relationship or interaction between her and personality) is a valuable asset and that correlates with ” positive aspects ”, based on social models where that virtue is correlated morality of conscientious worker, who is not politically critical (if criticism is needed) and who just wants to serve the system.

There seems to be a spectrum between infectious diseases such as influenza and human genetics itself if in most cases, we adapt against infectious agents, that is, by selecting and domesticating, heterozygous advantage of these agents.

Very high levels of ‘intelligence’ ‘or’ ‘creative intelligence’, seem to be related to an increased incidence of autoimmune diseases. Why **

Because of anomalous lateralization. The same process can cause significative increase in cognitive capacity, can cause mental disorders as well as the behavioural deviance.

I even think sometimes that leftism is the manifestation of this tendency in many minds, to see the world in another way, on the other side, the opposite of natural common sense and often brutal.

Many geniuses, especially in the arts, literature, but also a lot of science, some of the brightest minds suffered these cognitively heterozygous trends, and many had no children.

Understand the world as an animal, as most evolutionists do, regardless of the philosophical aspects for example of human creativity and its significant relationship with deviance in some way, as well as psychopathological predispositions, is the same as continue confuse genius with giftedness and still does not understand how that creativity, one of the most spectacular and powerful elements of the human mind works and how that should be considered.

I continue with my idea that all populations have average collective potential, either for height, for weight or even ”intelligence”, which in supra-ideal conditions, it may be possible to improve certain components, but always within a limit. Of course, with the exception of fixed traits.

Again hysteria of the super-masculine male, who can not act in a civilized manner. One way to show fast adaptation to environmental changes, even the nano scale as this. After considerably offend us one each other on Robert Lindsay blog, I figured, naively, that you perhaps could have changed their tactic of debate. However, miracles do not happen.

Ad hominem are not neutral arguments, when will the open head leftoids will learn it ***

Ad hominem = name calling

Arguments = ponctual refutations of other arguments which did not agree.

You want me to teach you the basics of civility ***

I’ll explain to you, dear, how the mind of creative people work.

First, we are, or rather, my kind of creative (neglecting those who are insanely liberal), we like to think independently, to reach our own conclusions, wrong or not. It means much risk, many ideas are wrong, others more or less, and others will be right.

This idea makes sense, based on the idea that there is great fluctuation of the environment. Sweden until the arrival of their smart siblings, can be considered as an example approaching ‘environmental supra-optimal’. Japan in the 80’s is another example. However, I doubt that would happen miracles in certain Caribbean islands and people suffer organic transformations. Environmental changes, especially in governance, can change the appearance of society as in Barbados, not to mention the special conditions, such as small population, commonwealth…

As I already said once, we all have a behavioral plasticity for tolerance, where we will be individually different in this sense, but the individual is encapsulated by your community, especially if he is the ordinary kind.

Those with little tolerance for certain aspects of psychological gratification, may be more likely to commit crimes. A life of crime is like the creative mind, more risk, but more likely to have quick success, with less effort and in less time.

Psychology and any humanities, without biology, (humanity = Life = Biology), is as pseudo-scientific as astrology or tarot. Incomplete science.

I am not advocating to transform the humanities in an extension of biology, all forms of the world interpretations are partially correct, but some are more essential.

In the dichotomous debate, nature versus nurture, nature won, because many of the scientists who has advocated for nuture were fraudulent.

Of course, now you want me to believe that the most disgusting place in the Western hemisphere is less violent, is like a bucolic little town in the Austrian Alps, do me a favor my son.

Of course, aware of how the ‘sapiens’ here, cries when he feels offended, but does not start when offend other people, child *** There is no doubt. Psychopaths do it.

I will not waste my time with these trash, even a second.

it’s funny that a delayed here still have the boldness to call me a perverted. Let’s see if in Africa there is some behavioral Puritanism, huuuum, nope, no.

Yes, the term perversion want to indicate that either someone who is malicious, it’s a bad person doing bad things.

The weed blacks, which are the greatest perversion of this new century, destroying everywhere it goes, of course, because the white man is evil and is directly responsible for it, so, blacks on average are just helpless beings in hands of evil white men (although many completely unethical experiments against socially disadvantaged populations have been committed by SOME white men, psychopaths).

Repeating the last time, when making any comments here, please do not refute, I want to sane people do interesting and polite rebuttals, not you.

I will not waste even a second more with shit like you, not with the moronic swank, is clear to me that there are two psychopaths.

Nossa, I do whatever I want with you. I will even give you a piece of advice, you need to get rid of your sexual frustration, so just go get fucked real hard by the big black cock of your dreams and you’re gonna be OK.

I thought you were polished, someone who has an aversion to perversion. But what else is talking all time about sex here. What I do or do not do behind closed doors does not concern anyone, understood nigger …

is very interesting a graduate in social science with these ideas sooo retrograde. The vast majority of social ” scientists ” (of Lagado, near to Laputa) are extremely politically correct, with all the sacred cows. But as you is one of the sacred cows, then you are on your privilege of being nasty to any group, is one who welcomed him, is the one who blindly defends his holiness.

I want peace, security and intelligent and good people around. Yes, I want sex as almost everyone wants. However, unlike the addicts leftist groups advocating liberalism because of their addictions, this does not happen to me.

Now is just ad hominem…

Judah of blogosphere tell to you ”self awareness is a real intelligence”.

The concept of heritability is basically it. Therefore, to analyze the degree of heritability of any trait, it might be more prudent to do so by analyzing the families everything that is hereditary, to be handed down from father to son. The twins analysis does not seem very reliable, it seems obvious that identical twins brothers (which is not the same as equal) will have a tendency to share a large proportion of genes.

Their ‘observations” do not invalidate my point, dear. You need to do more cerebral gymnastics to prove that my points are 100% disabled, which is almost impossible.

”If we except sexual chromosomes, our genes randomly come from two of both our parent’s two chromosomes.”

i think it’s more like metabolism may be inherited, not actual weight . Introducing modern processed foods in countries where the people are otherwise thin can cause obesity, but that’s because these people may have slow metabolisms

I don’t doubt genetic differences in metabolism account for a large portion of the variance in American obesity, but I’d be shocked if diet doesn’t also account for a large portion of the variance because anecdotally, there’s a huge correlation between fatness and bad eating habits.

Now since what folks decide to eat likely has a genetic component (impulse control, cravings etc) that gets counted as genetic variation in obesity studies, but what people really want to know is: Are they fat because of diet or are they fat because of how their genes respond to their diet?

“In humans, the coefficient of variation in the components of total daily energy expenditure is around 5-8% for resting metabolic rate, 1-2% for exercise energy expenditure, and around 20% for diet-induced thermogenesis.”

People get fat because of insulin. Why we get fat is because of constant insulin spikes. People do lose weight at different rates even when consuming the same amount of calories. Because gut microbiota influence numerous systems in our body. It’s almost as if gut microbiota truly have control over us…

If you want the answer to your question answered in great detail, read all of the books that I linked to you.

The Omega 6/Omega 3 balance likely explains a lot of the weight gain in the developed world.

There are differences in metabolic rate between people. It’s hard to partition out where the differences come from. But taking 2000 kcal as the mean, 1 SD is in the neighborhood of about 100 kcal. So, the “elite” burn 300 more calories per day. That’s….what….anextra two buffalo wings?

Every healthy male can achieve 10% bodyfat and 20 extra pounds of muscle.

Judah,
you think you are being fair??
This chimp offend me all the time, i can’t react???
this ”sapiens” said all kind of absurdisms against many groups.
Lindsay discover at time what is the true face of this person.

i worked with a black guy who described patrick ewing as a gorilla, yet the highest scoring guy in the history of my company was a black guy. he scored higher than me! but that was on the rather silly wonderlic. i’d made the seconf highest score.

a univision “journalist” described michelle obama as ape-like in facial skeleton…

This is why HBD deniers have such an uphill battle. Even if science ultimately proves all races have the exact same intelligence, if people think a certain race looks like monkeys, they will be subconsciously inclined to view them as monkeys, especially if they are from the same land as monkeys (chimps, gorillas), and the very land where man evolved from monkeys.

hbders have a apsecial place for sub-saharan africans in their liturgy of hate.

and one of the deep reasons is that ssa’s never left…never left the place where all amh’s originated…and their frequent and/or distinguishing prognathism and relatively flat and broad noses reinforces this bias.

men have evloved from apes. there’s no shame in it.

and the skin color thing is annoying as that is not what’s striking about ssa’s.

it’s a gestalt. skin color is only one of many features…which stand out…and thus distract.

i’ve known indians as dark as any african, really, yet unlike michelle obama, they don’t straighten their hair. they often have a european facial skeleton, but more often look like abos.

the extent to which a population’s facial skeleton approximates that of man’s nearest living relatives is meaningless.

the bodies of ssa’s are much LESS simian than those of nordics. and i would know. i have the face of an english school boy and the body of a chimp. ridiculously short legs for my height. muscular. long arms. etc.

in school i was ridiculed for being “short and tall at the same time” or not pulling up my pants…they were pulled up.

I wonder why racism doesn’t seem to affect South Indians. I had an economics professor in undergrad that had Abo-ish features rather than the Caucasoid features typical in Indians. Probably one of the 10 smartest people I’ve ever known personally and well-respected by all his colleagues.

South Indians dominate in academia, even compared to their northern cousins. And especially compared to Sub-Saharans. So it must be IQ doing the trick, not appearance-based discrimination.

hbders have a apsecial place for sub-saharan africans in their liturgy of hate.
and one of the deep reasons is that ssa’s never left…never left the place where all amh’s originated…and their frequent and/or distinguishing prognathism and relatively flat and broad noses reinforces this bias.

Some hbders hate sub-saharans. I personally like black people a lot, and thus feel guilty about the theories I believe, but the theories are just so fascinating to me I can’t help it.

And I think the dark skin is an additional independent factor contributing to the anti-black racism, because instinctively humans fear the dark, which makes it even more fascinating. So SSA have a double burden that almost no other race must deal with, which is why it really irritates me when conservatives deny blacks experience racism

the bodies of ssa’s are much LESS simian than those of nordics. and i would know. i have the face of an english school boy and the body of a chimp. ridiculously short legs for my height. muscular. long arms. etc.
in school i was ridiculed for being “short and tall at the same time” or not pulling up my pants…they were pulled up.

I think short muscular physiques are primitive so it kind of bothers me that some black types are tall and elegant and some northern races are almost short and muscular, because there’s a side of me that needs everything to fit together like a nice puzzle,

If I were an evil dictator, I would breed the races so that face, body, skin and mind all matched, and maximize the differences between them, and then set up battles of brains vs brawn.

And I think one reason why so many white people, especially young white people, reject HBD is they don’t want to be thought of as a member of a smart race because then they’d feel like nerds. To these people, it’s much more fun to be a dumb jock party animal, and being told they’re smarter and less sexually potent than blacks ruins their fun.

“South Indians dominate in academia, even compared to their northern cousins. And especially compared to Sub-Saharans.”

West Africans do very well in the West, here in France, West Africans are over-represented in the accademia, especially compared to the Arabs. We don’t have significant East or South Asian populations.

Moreover, I suspect Caribbeans to increase the statistics of non-Sahelian Blacks because non-sahelian blacks are highly functional people and families in France. Caribbeans are more working class and have lots of single parent households. There is also one figure that France 2’s graph doesn’t show: the disturbing criminality and dysfunction of the Gypsies, both French and foreign.

Also, you must notice that contrary to the US. Some minorities may have higher crime rates but it’s no way in the proportion of Blacks and Hispanics in the US. Even white Americans are more criminal than white Europeans so there is a US specific crime problem.

iiuc Jorge correctly he is hinting at the superficiality of human society.

Intelligence may be genetic in the sense that people with certain physical phenotypes are encouraged to develop “academic” smarts and others are not.

People are taught by society “who should be doing what,” and subconsciously treat everyone they meet accordingly.

If someone looks like an ape, well….
…and if someone likes like a neanderthal, the same.

This is why HBD deniers have such an uphill battle.

SO WRONG!

The ENTIRE point is to FIRST GET PEOPLE TO ADMIT to this truth.

I like the color blue. Others like the color red. There’s no scientific reason for it, nor does there NEED to be.

Having an honest conversation about race will go a long way in the U.S.

then they’d feel like nerds

But everyone (jocks) values intelligence. Smarts comes through in social situations; and it’s not when people pontificate about their personal interests. Little things…humor, figuring out how to solve problems, etc.

3. it’s totally irrelevant to determining the ability of those unfortunates who resemble apes…i’m pretty sure patrick ewing is NOT actually any more similar to an ape at the genetic level than Ingrid Bergman…but he DOES look more like one in the face…though much less like one in the body…even than Ingrid…who as a Swede likely had more simian proportions.

I can only think of a black HBDer, as an individual, who believes in the future of life-like robotics and genetically modified humans. Someone with an open mind, and with a perverse thinking, that less intelligent people need to be eliminated, in one way or the other.

First, he runs his blog almost like a craigslist comment section, where he is the commentator who provides links/info from other sites.

Second, he calls himself a liberal and acknowledge HBD, yet, derisive of those who point out the flaws of blacks. Makes no sense!

Third and most important, Jayman is not black, but a multiracial whatever person.

Pumpkin once made a statement that Whites have the best cognitive profile, hence their great success in the world. If he is black, he would acknowledge the problems of the black race, which he has demonstrated repeatedly.

“if identical twins are considerably more similar than fraternal twins (which is found for most traits), this implicates that genes play an important role in these traits.”

based on the incomplete and unanalyzed DZA IQ correlations that have been published, there does not appear to be a statistically significant difference between the MISTRA MZA and DZA groups on either the Wechsler (WAIS) IQ test (MZA correlation = .62, versus DZA = .50), or the Raven Progressive Matrices IQ test (MZA correlation =.55, versus DZA = .42).

not a single polymorphism has been reliably associated with any psychiatric disorders nor any aspect of human behavior within the “normal” range (e.g., differences in “intelligence”).

one can prepare/study for a test and improve his score, though supposedly not by much, and supposedly only for a specific test.

Culture loaded tests like the SAT you can’t improve much, presumably because we’ve all been preparing for such tests all our lives, so any additional study is way past the point of diminishing returns

Culture reduced tests however can be hugely influenced by practice precisely because they are designed to measure novel problem solving. When almost no one has ever seen the task before, having seen it even once is a huge competitive advantage.

However although culture reduced tests are very vulnerable to practice effects, these practice effects don’t seem to transfer to even very similar culture reduced tests. A person can extremely good at solving a certain kind of novel puzzle, but if you tweak it ever so slightly, he comes crashing down to his pre-practice level.

To greatly improve a score, someone needs to work backwards and toss out an old way of systematizing information and replace it with a new way of doing so.

For example, trying to figure out which legal cases are good law and bad law is difficult, and left to one’s own devices, “brute force” practice will help a little but not a lot. But learning the concept of precedent will completely change an individual’s understanding of everything they read.

… argues against the third law of behavior genetics (most traits are 50-50 genetic/environmental), saying they are often more like 75% genetic, 25% environmental. He argues that the 50-50 formulation ignores measurement error, which shows up as “environmental” on twin studies. As support for his hypothesis, he shows that the Big Five Personality Traits, usually considered about 30-40% genetic on studies where personality is measured by self-report, shoot up to 85% or so genetic in studies where personality is an average of self-report and other-report.

Not everyone is selected for the rangers’ trials, fucktard. But what JayMan establishes as a fact is that the 50-50% genetic environment is wrong, more like 85% genetic and the rest noise. He establishes this fact on his blog, which is now at Unz Review, but very well in this comments section. Just ctrl+f for JayMan’s comments, his argument is thorough.

I do believe that your IQ score only reflects how good you are at IQ tests and that the majority of intellectual skills required for success and satisfaction with life are not measured by IQ tests. In my opinion, the correlations found between IQ and some life outcomes are causal but in the opposite way as HDBers claim. Life outcomes make IQ instead of IQ making life.

I do deny the validity of IQ tests as measures of “intelligence” but I don’t deny their validity in estimating some cognitive abilities.

There is absolutely zero evidence for any environmental effect on IQ score.

“Group differences, as far as we know, are in the DNA. Nobody yet has found any credible environmental effect on IQ or academic achievement. And believe me, people have been frantically looking for one for sixty, seventy years. Nothing. If you look at the quantitative genetic analyses, they’ll talk about a contribution from genes, and a contribution from environment. What that contribution from environment is, is random error. It doesn’t matter who raised you, as long as they didn’t hit you on the head with a hammer. It doesn’t matter whether you have high or low self-esteem. Everything has been shown just not to be there. The gap between ethnic groups is not closing in this country. There have been announcements that it’s closing for at least the last twenty years, usually in the New York Times, it’s not there, there’s no difference. There’s no change. Nothing changes.”

IQ test designers think a lot about construct validity, because a more highly g-loaded test is a better predictor of real-world performance for almost anything. (The US Army learned this the hard way after the misnorming of the AFQT in the late 70’s).

The positive manifold found is not a artifact of the test’s invalidity. And psychometricians no longer accept this argument.

Cochran is wrong all the way, the reality is that the only things that have been proven to affect IQ scores are environmental and the main of them is the Flynn effect that could never have happened without parallel genetic changes if IQ was mostly genetic.

You asked me a question, I answered it and your hereditarian dogmatism won’t change anything. You can cite every HBD guru and pseudo-studies, I am well aware of what your little world is. And keep in mind that Iknow hereditarianism much better than you know and understand environmental explanations so I perfectly understand your thinking process and its flaws.

My definition of intelligence is the ability to adapt to particular circumstances and one must be incredibly ignorant to believe IQ tests are valid estimates of one’s ability to solve challenges in the way that will bring as much personal satisfaction as possible.

In this study, researchers took the gut microbiota of one obese twin and one thin twin and gave them to two separate rats and housed them in different locations. One rat became obese, the other thin just like the twins. When the two were housed together, the lean twin’s bacteria became established in the obese mouse and that mouse lost weight on a low-fat high vegetable diet but gained weight on a high-fat low vegetable diet.

The bacteria types common in obese people break down more energy, especially complex carbohydrates like cellulose, xylan and pectin.

I do not know which would be the differing characteristics of Barbadians in relation to other populations of African descent, which I know is that the country seems to be much more peaceful than most underdeveloped nations of the Americas. This is evidence of a supra-ideal environment where you have employment for all, a small population to be managed, an elite that seems to be more conscientious and proper use of national wealth as well as the potential in the tourist area, in a efficient and correct way.

Actually santo, black Bermudians suffer numerous worse social outcomes than Bermudian whites. The key difference seems to be wealth; a black Bermudian’s average income is nearly 50k. An black American’s average income is 18k.

High income caribbean countries have poorer populaces than their GDP figures indicate and they are not the super-environments HBDers fantasize about. Barabados even have a highly dysfuctional white minority decended from Irish slaves.

What I know about Barbados and Bermuda that makes a difference is that their climates are not tropical but temperate so disease load is lower and the heat is not as incapacitating.

Barbados is a example of a black-majority country that is very, very good if compared with most of other black-majority countries. Commonwhealth, little territory and population and multirracial elites that explain a lot what this country works. Living standard is not in a Singapore level but is very good for latin american and black-majority levels.

”Highly dysfunctional white minority”, if you can prove what you are saying here… I don’t doubt that there are many dysfunctional white populations but i don’t know if is the case of white minority in Barbados.

The fact that Caribbean islands have multiracial elites is meaningless, first because it is not what makes a country work, Haïti, Jamaica, Dominican Republic and other nations have multi-racial elites too. Moreover, there are enough full blooded blacks in the top 0.5% of IQ distribution in each black majority country to fill government and key civil service positions. So no, Barbados is a fuctional country that owes nothing to its multi-racial elite. And the comparative with Singapore is irrelevant as the Island is not on major trade routes, has a much smaller population while singopore is just a huge city and its population is mostly decended from slaves, not voluntary migrants and trader-settlers.

“Dysfunctional, specially, in my opinion, if the group, on average, were violent, because to be just poor is not dysfunctional enough.”

Lol, many black countries have average or low crime rates like Haïti, Martinique (French dependency), Senegal, Niger, Liberia, Barbados and many others. The most dangerous countries in the world are Colombia, Venezuela, and central American countries. Are metizos a dysfuctional race ? Greenland has a similar homicide rate to Nigeria, are Inuits dysfuctional ?

And for your information, the Commonwealth is not an economic partnership like the European Union, Barbados owes nothing to the fact of being part of this union. Why are you trying to avoid the fact that they just have an efficient government and a population that is well responsive to the efforts made to improve the standards of living in the island.

I have no statistics about violence in the redleg community, however given the reputation of the Irish lower class, they are most likely not a very sophisticated and morally straight community, but that’s just a speculation of mine.

Meaningless your brain!!
Detroit government racial makeup supposedly, based on your pseudo-logic, no have any influence ( but if the case the otherwise, the ”argument” would be different: “look for the black elite of a nonexistent developed country. You see, elites racial makeup matter”). Elites decide the destiny of the crowd. People is weak to fight by their rights. If elites were morally weak or corrupted, society will suffer, and Black politicians are not better in governance than whites or east asians.
Most of violence of mestizo populations is caused by unfavorable genes, white prostitutes, psychopathic white men copulating with non-whites by successive generations, many times.
Of course, even Penguin of Madasgacar are violent, ”naturally” violent. Your simpathetic brothers are not, ””environment”’ is the cause. Of course there are non-violent black population, but exception prove the rule.
Try again!!

Ok, Iceland and Barbados, similar population size. Nations have different historical path but psychological and cognitive traits of populations modulate it.

“and Black politicians are not better in governance than whites or east asians.”

I never said black politicians were any better than other races at governance, I just said multiracial elites were not better and could not explain the success of a black majority country. Check your verbal IQ sweetie.

“Most of violence of mestizo populations is caused by unfavorable genes”

So you think that the fact that these countries are on the major route of the drug trade, that metizos are a disadvantaged demographic has no influence on their crime rates, that it’s all genetic…

“Of course there are non-violent black population, but exception prove the rule.”

That’s for folk beliefs, in science the opposite applies, a rule is only a rule if there is no exception to it.

”I never said black politicians were any better than other races at governance, I just said multiracial elites were not better and could not explain the success of a black majority country. Check your verbal IQ sweetie.”

….I never said….

…could not explain…

”Check your verbal IQ sweetie”

For the shinning negroid brain here, ”intelligence is iq”, so…

my baaaaad verbal iq en anglais is better than their ”’parents”’ in ”haiti”.

”So you think that the fact that these countries are on the major route of the drug trade, that metizos are a disadvantaged demographic has no influence on their crime rates, that it’s all genetic…”

that the fact that these… that the fact that these… hei how heil how

Again, the typical liberal argument that seeks to reduce a certain complexity to get to their circular thoughts or dogmas, desilusional thinking.

Even should be controversial discuss genetics. Genetics in other words, means that we are (you I know ‘it’s a lunatic who thinks is a genius, poor blacktard !!!! huahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahua)

Environmental factors, I kindly reset as ” something that has nothing to do with genetics, but with the environment, as its name suggests ”. What happens around you (such as rain bananas) are environmental factors. Your genetics, ie you, ape, react to these interactions, according to their genetic heritage. It is likely to commit crimes, then there will be great intolerance for long-term gratification. Low intelligence is also a factor to increase the predisposition to criminal behavior (and charlatanism in the case of noise smarty like you). But of course, why I’m talking about what should be obvious to you **

The funniest thing in his adventures through in the world of intelligence, is that commits some of the biggest contradictions and not even realizing it. For example, to conclude that white Barbadians are ‘socially dysfunctional’ ‘, ‘it’, ”you” was very quick. Now to accept that the French blacks are also far from any close functional collectivity, with exceptions, you can not make the link.

Disgusting talk to a being so pathetic and devoid of the minimum honesty as you.

Will be my last words to you, the next I’ll send him eat shit.

The people I have called the ” uber behaviourists experts ”, insanely exaggerate the role of environmental factors, by political and philosophical reasons, because this is a way to take responsibility for people and make them dependent on the state.

And a tangent to the “EGI” discussion. It makes sense to value those around you because those people are the ones with skills and talents you can make use of. A man from a rival tribe (or even a co-ethnic more than three trees down) has no clue about your tribal life and will probably use your skills to help him thrive while offering you nothing in return. This impulse could evolve because both parties are better off in the exchange.

So, whether it’s maladaptive depends. Blind altruism to “co-ethnics” can’t work. But ethnic reciprocal altruism could work where the society is homogenous and the environments are roughly uniform such that the type of beneficial exchange above could happen between someone and virtually any other member in that society.

However, in a society where “rival ethnics” experience a similar environment and can offer beneficial skills, it can be maladaptive.

Ah. So the HBDer can simply argue that rival ethnics CAN’T develop these skills.
YOU’RE WELCOME.

If by “can’t work”, you mean, can’t be selected for, then you could make that case. But I make a distinction between genetically adaptive and selected. To assume everything that is genetically adaptive gets selected for assumes evolution is perfectly efficient, analogous to assuming everything with value sells for a high price assumes markets are perfectly efficient.

Just as there is market failure (valuable products being undersold), there is evolutionary failure (genetically adaptive traits being unselected)

But ethnic reciprocal altruism could work where the society is homogenous and the environments are roughly uniform such that the type of beneficial exchange above could happen between someone and virtually any other member in that society.

You’re just talking about genetic drift, and the sheer amount of random bottlenecks, etc. that would prevent selection for this ‘genetically adaptive’ trait is too large to make any sense.

No. I’m talking about the very definition of genetic fitness which, as far as I can tell, is the number of genes you replicate. It’s very easy to imagine genes that are NEGATIVELY selected themselves, even though they replicated many copies of other genes the organism carries.

So the gene might be maladaptive from the perspective of its own interests, but highly adaptive from the perspective of the organism’s total genome.

If someone sacrifices their life to save their entire race, that is adaptive for their genome

No it is not. They would have to sacrifice their life in such a way so that their “race’s” average fitness increased nearly infinity.

I’m talking about what enhances genetic fitness.

First, what you’re talking about doesn’t do that.

Second, I am talking about both. I am talking about how RA would have evolved, and I’m also talking about the conditions ethnocentric behavior etc. would “enhance” genetic fitness. It’s simple, and it works.

No it is not. They would have to sacrifice their life in such a way so that their “race’s” average fitness increased nearly infinity.

You’re assuming genetic relatedness is absolute. It’s relative

Second, I am talking about both. I am talking about how RA would have evolved, and I’m also talking about the conditions ethnocentric behavior etc. would “enhance” genetic fitness. It’s simple, and it works

Yes. Relative to one’s main competitors, i.e. generally co-ethnics. The fellow who sacrifices to save his race likely has ‘his race’ as his main competitors.

Well of course reciprocal

No. The behavior is ‘be kind to those you are around.’ It’s altruism. I am explaining why that altruism could have evolved, and I am also explaining under what conditions that sort of altruism could work if directed at ‘co-ethnics.’ But generally, it is something else that is misfiring anyway.

If selection wouldn’t favor a behavior, then that behavior does not enhance genetic fitness.

No. If one sacrifices his life to get the size of his race to double, he has dramatically enhanced his genetic fitness relative to all non-coethnics, but his behavior may still be strongly selected against.

one sacrifices his life to get the size of his race to double, he has dramatically enhanced his genetic fitness relative to all non-coethnics

No, he hasn’t. What would have to happen is that the size of his race would have to increase faster or more relative to another race.

Now, while that’s true and it could happen, it would be a temporary phenomenon.

Within the group, the allele you’re talking about will be weeded out. So the absolute frequency can temporarily increase because of random events like the ones you’re hypothesizing (which does not mean they ever happened or are likely to happen) but the allele will always be maladaptive within the group and tending toward zero.

No, he hasn’t. What would have to happen is that the size of his race would have to increase faster or more relative to another race.

Now, while that’s true and it could happen, it would be a temporary phenomenon.

No more temporary than any other fitness enhancing behavior

Within the group, the allele you’re talking about will be weeded out. So the absolute frequency can temporarily increase because of random events like the ones you’re hypothesizing (which does not mean they ever happened or are likely to happen) but the allele will always be maladaptive within the group and tending toward zero.

Again, you’re conflating fitness enhancing with selectively favoured. The two are highly correlated but not equivalent.

Swank’s EGI is simpler and it works.

You’ve proposed ideas for how ethnocentric behavior could evolve, but you don’t seem to believe people genetically benefit just because their ethnic groups thrive, so you don’t really believe in ethnic genetic interests.

Far more temporary. The events where an individual’s sacrifice increases his race’s population sufficiently more than a “rival” population are few and far between, if they’ve ever even existed.

you’re conflating fitness enhancing with selectively favoured

No, I’m not. Genetic fitness is the reproductive success of a genotype. That is the only metric to assess genetic fitness. If the gene is not spreading, it is not fitness enhancing. And within all the groups, it will be decreasing in frequency.

You need to invoke extremely implausible events…

you don’t seem to believe people genetically benefit just because their ethnic groups thrive

In certain situations…that I outlined above. And even though what I outlined is a limited situation, it’s a situation that is infinitely more likely than the ones you keep making up.

Far more temporary. The events where an individual’s sacrifice increases his race’s population sufficiently more than a “rival” population are few and far between, if they’ve ever even existed.

If your point was that the opportunity for such fitness enhancement is rare, then I agree.

No, I’m not. Genetic fitness is the reproductive success of a genotype. That is the only metric to assess genetic fitness. If the gene is not spreading, it is not fitness enhancing.

A gene can decrease in frequency while causing other genes you carry to increase in frequency. Conversely a gene can increase in frequency while causing other genes you carry to decrease in frequency. Genetic fitness occurs at multiple levels of analysis: the gene, the individual, and the group.

You need to invoke extremely implausible events…

I don’t need to invoke anything because I’m not arguing that EGI was directly selected for. I agree with your brilliant theory that it was just a biproduct of kin selection, however unlike you, I think it’s fitness enhancing because I do not equate fitness enhancing with selectively favoured, because to do so assumes evolution is 100% efficient (analogous to how equating value with market price assumes markets are 100% efficient)

In certain situations…that I outlined above. And even though what I outlined is a limited situation, it’s a situation that is infinitely more likely than the ones you keep making up.

But the scenarios I’m describing don’t have to be likely because I’m not arguing they occurred, I am simply saying that IF they occur, they are fitness enhancing.

A gene can decrease in frequency while causing other genes you carry to increase in frequency

And as I have already stated, the hypothetical situation where this would happen based on I’m assuming a very fast-loose use of FsT between populations would be extremely rare.

I don’t need to invoke anything because I’m not arguing that EGI was directly selected for

I’m no longer talking about the plausibility of selection. I am now talking about situations where for whatever reason, this hypothetical allele is ‘out there.’ What happens is what I say happens: within the groups, frequency decrease.

IF they occur, they are fitness enhancing.

I know, but the scenario is so implausible.

biproduct of kin selection

Or general in-group (and an extremely local group at that) altruism, they could both work.

Mine a) allows it to evolve, b) requires certain conditions to remain ‘beneficial’ but unlike yours the conditions probably obtain fairly often, and c) the best part for people in love with EGI: there is a potential reason to prefer ‘one’s own’ versus ‘others.’

It’s not implausible. If you save the life of just ten co-ethnics (say by giving money to charity) you have increased your genetic fitness relative to the average human’s, by the same amount as having one kid raises your genetic fitness relative to an average co-ethnic’s.

you have increased your genetic fitness relative to the average human’s,

First, it’s not just saving their lives, the gesture must increase their fitness from whatever it would have been before and at the same time, not decrease your own direct fitness to the point of canceling out whatever gain would accrue to your ‘genetic fitness’ through them. Second, the increase must come at the other group’s expense. Third, the amount of money required to “save ten lives” to the extent you’re talking about is much higher than you imagine it to be.

And this, all while the allele is tending toward zero within the groups in which it emerges.

First, it’s not just saving their lives, the gesture must increase their fitness from whatever it would have been before and at the same time,

The gesture increases the number of one’s ethnic genes above what it would have been had the gesture not been made. That’s an increase in genetic fitness relative to all non-coethnics.

not decrease your own direct fitness to the point of canceling out whatever gain would accrue to your ‘genetic fitness’ through them.

There’s always some alternative behavior that could have increased fitness even more, so by this logic, virtually nothing anyone can ever do can increase their genetic fitness.

Second, the increase must come at the other group’s expense.

Every-time you increase the number of your ethnic genes in the global gene-pool, you DECREASE the percentage of human genes associated with other ethnic groups.

Third, the amount of money required to “save ten lives” to the extent you’re talking about is much higher than you imagine it to be.

Then just save one. Saving just ONE co-ethnic advances your genetic fitness relative to members of a distant race by the same amount as saving your first cousin advances your genetic fitness relative to distant co-ethnics.

And this, all while the allele is tending toward zero within the groups in which it emerges.

I’m talking about the genetic fitness of the individual person, not the individual allele

Implausible.

It’s not implausible. Millions of people have saved the life of a random co-ethnic.

Mine is much much simpler and it works.

It doesn’t work for explaining why helping random co-ethnics (with no reciprocity) advances ones genetic fitness, and that’s the point of EGI. On the other hand you have made a valuable contribution by suggesting how the tendency the act in one’s ethnic genetic interests could evolve.

Not if the other group is also increasing in number. It specifically has to be an increase at another group’s expense. For example, a sacrifice in a war specifically allows the tribe to slaughter most of another tribe.

There’s always some alternative behavior that could have increased fitness even more,

No, you need to count the loss to your own genetic fitness in the gesture when computing the increase in “overall genetic fitness.”

the same amount as saving your first cousin advances your genetic fitness relative to distant co-ethnics.

Yes it does: “where the society is homogenous and the environments are roughly uniform such that the type of beneficial exchange above could happen between someone and virtually any other member in that society.”

So being altruistic toward a co-ethnic here would work because a random co-ethnic would likely offer me the same type of beneficial skills as those around me would, in that situation.

I merely said that ‘blind altruism’ wouldn’t work because the above scenario does not always obtain in every environment.

Anyway, explained how it would evolve, and I also explained how it could be maintained. And it’s way simpler.

Not if the other group is also increasing in number. It specifically has to be an increase at another group’s expense. For example, a sacrifice in a war specifically allows the tribe to slaughter most of another tribe.

I’m not talking about a sacrifice. I’m talking about something very simple. If you save a co-ethnic’s life, without ending your own, you’ve just made the human gene pool on average more genetically similar to you then it would have been had you not saved his life.

,No, you need to count the loss to your own genetic fitness in the gesture when computing the increase in “overall genetic fitness.”

If you can save his life without ending your own, you only need to save one to enhance your fitness. And again, the allele’s frequency decreasing tells us the fitness of the allele, not the fitness of the individual who carries it.

Yes it does: “where the society is homogenous and the environments are roughly uniform such that the type of beneficial exchange above could happen between someone and virtually any other member in that society.”
So being altruistic toward a co-ethnic here would work because a random co-ethnic would likely offer me the same type of beneficial skills as those around me would, in that situation.

What you’re describing is not ethnic genetic interests though it helps explain how ethnocentrism could have evolved which is necessary for people to act in their ethnic genetic interests. But EGI itself is when the only benefit to helping a random co-ethnic is genetic…if it requires some other benefit (reciprocity) it’s not EGI.

All addressed in the three points above. First, you must calculate the net effect the gesture will have on your own direct fitness (there are no cost-free gestures). Second the amount of gestures (in this case money) required to actually save the lives of co-ethnics is much greater than you imagine it to be. These are all wildly implausible and infrequent scenarios.

But EGI itself is when the only benefit to helping a random co-ethnic is genetic

Yes, EGI as stated by Salter (and you) is silly. I am applying actual scientific principles so that the behaviors discussed are plausible and non-silly. It’s still an “ethnic genetic interest” if altruism toward a co-ethnic increases your genetic fitness. You just object to the limitation in environmental circumstances.

But the environmental circumstances you’re talking about are implausible. No behavior needs to always increase genetic fitness. You are trying to make it universal; it is extremely contingent. You need to invoke weird concepts like ‘allele that increases genetic fitness but is not selected for.’ I do not.

If you save a co-ethnic’s life, without ending your own,
All addressed in the three points above. First, you must calculate the net effect the gesture will have on your own direct fitness (there are no cost-free gestures).

So if a co-ethnic is drowning and I throw him a life preserver, what is the cost to my direct fitness? The whole idea of direct fitness vs indirect fitness is specious anyway.

Second the amount of gestures (in this case money) required to actually save the lives of co-ethnics is much greater than you imagine it to be. These are all wildly implausible and infrequent scenarios.

So implausible they happen every single day.

Yes, EGI as stated by Salter (and you) is silly. I am applying actual scientific principles so that the behaviors discussed are plausible and non-silly. It’s still an “ethnic genetic interest” if altruism toward a co-ethnic increases your genetic fitness. You just object to the limitation in environmental circumstances.

I don’t object to it as a mechanism by which the behavior could have been selected for, but the term “ethnic genetic interests” implies that your genetic interest in your coethnics is intrinsic, and not merely based on what they can do for you.

But I agree it’s silly to be concerned about your genetic interests (ethnic or otherwise) just because they’re your genetic interests, and I think a lot of smart people tend to reject them (including by abstaining from parenthood), but as far as silly games go, this one is pretty interesting

You need to invoke weird concepts like ‘allele that increases genetic fitness but is not selected for.’ I do not.

You don’t because you’re not arguing EGI; you’re arguing something else that you insist on calling EGI. And it’s not a weird concept, it’s arguably one of the most important insights in the history Darwinism. The notion that natural selection occurs at multiples levels of analysis.

The minimal effort to throw a very light object does not decrease one’s genetic fitness.

If you’re in a small boat and the individual is far away, requiring a strong toss, you could lose your balance and fall into the water yourself. And in rough water, life preservers are also fairly useless.

If the individual can’t swim, a life preserver is useless. If they’re ‘drowning’ and about to lose consciousness, a life preserver is useless.

Once he gets out of the water he’ll take care of himself.

Oh so you’re describing a situation where the water is calm and a co-ethnic is having trouble but can swim and you are on the shore and happen along and toss him a life preserver, saving his life.

…

Situations like this are too rare to make an impact one way or another or make ‘genetic interests’ non-silly.

His mere existence is at the genetic expense of the rival group because he’s occupying a percent of humanity’s gene-pool that isn’t occupied by one of them..

If you’re in a small boat and the individual is far away, requiring a strong toss, you could lose your balance and fall into the water yourself.

Oh give it up. Millions of people have saved a life and were perfectly fine.

Situations like this are too rare to make an impact one way or another or make ‘genetic interests’ non-silly.

By that logic all emergency room doctors and life guards and nurses and body guards and firemen and police and peace keepers and philanthropists need to retire because the act of saving a life is so rare it’s just silly!

.No, if their population is increasing faster, then it doesn’t matter.

The gesture still increased your genetic fitness more than it would have increased had you done nothing. Same with having kids. It increases your genetic fitness more than it would have had you not had them, but that doesn’t mean someone else didn’t increase their litter size faster.

Telling that after saying I should ‘give it up’ you default to another unbacked wild assertion.

By that logic

When you get the logic wrong, sure.

I didn’t say ‘saving a life’ is so rare. I said that ‘saving a life’ at essentially zero cost takes much more resources than you imagine.

Do you think healthcare costs are high because it’s just so ‘easy’ to save a life? And the only reason these people do it is because they aren’t doing it for nothing; they recoup their costs and then a little more (or sometimes a lot more).

The gesture still increased

If you are getting outcompeted you are getting outcompeted. So the marginal situations you are talking about only help in very limited circumstances anyway. It’s silly.

.
I didn’t say ‘saving a life’ is so rare. I said that ‘saving a life’ at essentially zero cost takes much more resources than you imagine.

But when one talks about genetic fitness, costs and benefits are measured in offspring equivalents not “resources”. Millions of people have saved lives with no known damage to their litter size.

If you are getting outcompeted you are getting outcompeted.

But you’d be out-competed by an even greater margin if you didn’t save the co-ethnic’s life.

So the marginal situations you are talking about only help in very limited circumstances anyway. It’s silly

Millions of people have saved the life of a co-ethnic without decreasing their litter size. I wouldn’t call millions of cases marginal.

.My way is simpler and actually makes sense.

You still don’t seem to understand that we’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about how a behavior actually evolved prehistorically, and I’m talking about how it enhances genetic fitness in a modern context and whether the benefits can include unreciprocated ethnocentricism

But when one talks about genetic fitness, costs and benefits are measured in offspring equivalents not “resources”

A huge expenditure and outflow of resources has an effect on fitness.

Millions of people have saved lives with no known damage to their litter size.

Assertion.

But you’d be out-competed by an even greater margin if you didn’t save the co-ethnic’s life.

The situations where it would “increase genetic fitness” simply do not occur often.

You still don’t

No, YOU still aren’t getting that I am talking about BOTH.

I specifically outlined a MODERN CONTEXT where ALTRUISM toward co-ethnics would work. Here it is AGAIN: where the society is homogenous and the environments are roughly uniform such that the type of beneficial exchange above could happen between someone and virtually any other member in that society.

The reason it works is because the ‘misfire’ ensures reciprocity in this specific situation.

But when discussing genetic fitness, costs and benefits are measured in offspring equivalents. The benefits of saving a random coethnic’s life can be directly measured in offspring equivalents. The costs you describe can not be measured in offspring equivalents so they are entirely open-ended, unfalsifiable and unscientific assertions.

The situations where it would “increase genetic fitness” simply do not occur often.

Often is relative. The fact is there are millions of people who have saved the life of a coethnic with no known harm to their litter size.

.
I specifically outlined a MODERN CONTEXT where ALTRUISM toward co-ethnics would work. Here it is AGAIN: where the society is homogenous and the environments are roughly uniform such that the type of beneficial exchange above could happen between someone and virtually any other member in that society.
The reason it works is because the ‘misfire’ ensures reciprocity in this specific situation

I agree with you, however critics would just say that’s not true Ethnic Genetic Interests because you are benefiting from the random co-ethnic’s reciprocity, not his genes directly.

However you have made valuable contributions in explaining how the ACTUAL behavior could have evolved and can continue to evolve, and actually explaining things is the more important goal of science.

I am simply making the point that a behavior can increase genetic fitness even if it doesn’t get selected for.

The costs you describe can not be measured in offspring equivalents so they are entirely open-ended, unfalsifiable and unscientific assertions.

Your hypothetical speculation about “saving a random co-ethnic’s life” at no cost to yourself is “entirely open-ended, unfalsifiable and unscientific,” especially in light of what the reality is of ‘saving lives’: high healthcare costs.

The fact is there are millions of people who have saved the life of a coethnic with no known harm to their litter size.

You can’t save one, you need to save many, and the amount one needs to save is so high that the situation wrt to the allele means that it both isn’t likely to evolve and is likely to be always trending toward extinction even when it reaches high frequency through genetic drift or whatever else.

critics would just say that’s not true Ethnic Genetic Interests

I am one of them, because EGI as defined by Salter and you IS SILLY.

behavior can increase genetic fitness even if it doesn’t get selected for.

The entire concept of fitness is unity with selection.

“In either case, it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29

Your hypothetical speculation about “saving a random co-ethnic’s life” at no cost to yourself is “entirely open-ended, unfalsifiable and unscientific,” especially in light of what the reality is of ‘saving lives’: high healthcare costs.

No, because I’ve followed biologists in clearly defining costs and benefits as offspring equivalents. So any gesture that saves the life of a co-ethnic without sacrificing another life (including one’s own) in the process, is a genetic win..

You can’t save one, you need to save many,

No, just one will suffice.

and the amount one needs to save is so high that the situation wrt to the allele means that it both isn’t likely to evolve and is likely to be always trending toward extinction even when it reaches high frequency through genetic drift or whatever else

Irrelevant

.I am one of them, because EGI as defined by Salter and you IS SILLY.

It’s not silly once one understands it.

The entire concept of fitness is unity with selection.

What critics of EGI do not understand is that selection works on multiple levels. The genes that cause EGI can be negatively selected while causing the totality of one’s genes to be positively selected.

If you assume zero cost, which you have failed to provide any evidence for, sure.

Irrelevant

The fact that the allele will always be decreasing in frequency because it in fact does not increase overall genetic fitness is very relevant.

It’s not silly once one understands it.

There’s nothing to “understand.” It’s silly. You are saying things that are silly like “enhance genetic fitness while being selected against.”

can be negatively selected while causing the totality of one’s genes to be positively selected.

Already addressed:

“If it’s adaptive for the organism’s “genome,” then it is adaptive….

X = psychopathy and Y = smarts. X without Y is maladaptive, but X with Y is adaptive. Contingent but still clearly either adaptive or maladaptive.”

Wrt to “different” levels of selection, the allele must confer an advantage both within and between groups on balance. The problem is that the benefits of the group would have to be so outsize to compensate for the glaring losses -within the group- of the allele’s frequency.

Group selection isn’t taken very seriously by evolutionists for a reason, and it’s not because “no one understands it.”

A superior adoption study — and one not discussed by the hereditarians — was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference in I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr. Moore’s finding that children adopted by white families had I.Q.’s 13 points higher than those of children adopted by black families. The environments that even middle-class black children grow up in are not as favorable for the development of I.Q. as those of middle-class whites.

like the ceo of DX. he runs the tightest ship in the mortgage reit space, non-interest expense is <.5% of equity.

.
If you assume zero cost, which you have failed to provide any evidence for, sure.

You’re the one asserting that there’s a genetic fitness cost to saving a life. It’s up to you to show evidence.

The fact that the allele will always be decreasing in frequency because it in fact does not increase overall genetic fitness is very relevant.

Non sequitor. An allele can decrease in frequency while increasing overall fitness.

There’s nothing to “understand.” It’s silly. You are saying things that are silly like “enhance genetic fitness while being selected against.”

The fact that you think the statement is silly proves you don’t understand how it could happen.
.Already addressed:
“If it’s adaptive for the organism’s “genome,” then it is adaptive….
X = psychopathy and Y = smarts. X without Y is maladaptive, but X with Y is adaptive. Contingent but still clearly either adaptive or maladaptive.”

You’re even more confused than I thought. I’m not talking about a trait that only becomes adaptive when accompanied by another trait, I’m talking about a trait that is not adaptive for the genes that cause it, yet still adaptive for the totality of genes.

Group selection isn’t taken very seriously by evolutionists for a reason, and it’s not because “no one understands it.”

You’re the one asserting that there’s a genetic fitness cost to saving a life. It

In response to unbacked assertions you have made. And I gave reasons to believe that your statements were false or described situations that at the best were marginal: the high healthcare cost of “saving lives.

I’m talking about

My statement addressed this: “If it’s adaptive for the organism’s “genome,” then it is adaptive….”

Whether you realize or not, you’re just trying to say that if a gene causes people to save the lives of their co-ethnics when there’s “little cost” to themselves, that gene will be adaptive. Of course, such a “gene” would increase genetic fitness. Unless of course their main competitors are co-ethnics, in which case it may not be a good idea.

Not sure how group selection

Because you said “selection operates at different levels.” And the only possible way this entire house of cards avoids the slight breeze is group-level selection. But the situations and conditions under which it could happen are just too rare. Nevermind the fact that the FsT basis for all of this is flimsy anyway.

Your assertion about an allele increasing “overall” genetic fitness while also not being selected for is just wrong. Either the genes increase or decrease in frequency. You’re just shoehorning a weird definition of fitness and adaptive into those terms as scientists use them to come out with strange result.

. In response to unbacked assertions you have made. And I gave reasons to believe that your statements were false or described situations that at the best were marginal: the high healthcare cost of “saving lives.

Genetic fitness costs are not measured in health care dollars, they are measured in actual lives lost. You need to prove that virtually everyone who saves a life does so by sacrificing the life of someone more related to them in order for your critique to be tenable. Essentially what you’re saying is there are virtually no heroes. All life savers have somehow killed someone else in the process, including their unborn children. Very strange argument

My statement addressed this: “If it’s adaptive for the organism’s “genome,” then it is adaptive….”

Fails to address multiple levels of evolution

Whether you realize or not, you’re just trying to say that if a gene causes people to save the lives of their co-ethnics when there’s “little cost” to themselves, that gene will be adaptive. Of course, such a “gene” would increase genetic fitness. Unless of course their main competitors are co-ethnics, in which case it may not be a good idea.

But genetic fitness is relative. If a man sacrifices his son to save three of his brothers, he has reduced his genetic fitness relative to his brothers, but increased his genetic fitness relative to random co-ethnics.

By contrast if a man saves the life of a random co-ethnic without sacrificing anyone, he increases his genetic fitness relative to the average human.

Because you said “selection operates at different levels.” And the only possible way this entire house of cards avoids the slight breeze is group-level selection. But the situations and conditions under which it could happen are just too rare.

Don’t think in terms of group selection. Think in terms of whether the action made the totality of the human gene pool more or less similar to the total genome of the individual. If the answer is yes, it’s a genetic win.

It’s really incredibly straight forward. Nothing worth arguing over.

.Your assertion about an allele increasing “overall” genetic fitness while also not being selected for is just wrong. Either the genes increase or decrease in frequency.

Genes that cause a certain behavior can decrease in frequency while the behavior they cause, causes the totality of the individual’s genes to increase in frequency

and wrong anyway. the healthcare cost is a proxy for the resource investment and cost to fitness. further, i don’t need to prove “there are no heroes.” i just need to show that “heroes” tend to take on substantial risk to do what they do or that it’s not often, if at all, cost-free like you say (without any evidence).

Fails to address multiple levels of evolution

that’s not what you’re doing. you are warping the concepts of fitness and selection.

genetic fitness is relative

which is exactly why the fact that one’s main competitors are co-ethnics is relevant and alone dismantles EGI.

Think in terms

you’re just describing group selection. a certain group is increasing “its genotype” relative to all other groups of humanity.

It’s really incredibly straight forward.Genes that cause a certain behavior can decrease in frequency while the behavior they cause, causes the totality of the individual’s genes to increase in frequency

you’re appealing to group selection here. you’re just saying that the strong selection within-group could be overcome by the effect at the group level. the problem is that the situations you’re talking about at the group level simply do not occur often enough.

My claim is backed up by the millions and millions and millions of people who saved coethnics. You need to prove all those people are murderers.

and wrong anyway. the healthcare cost is a proxy for the resource investment and cost to fitness

You have no way of translating health care costs into fitness costs for a given individual life saver. You need to prove that virtually everyone who saves a life only did so by killing another.

further, i don’t need to prove “there are no heroes.” i just need to show that “heroes” tend to take on substantial risk to do what they do or that it’s not often

“substantial risk” and “not often” are vague meaningless terms. There are millions of people who have saved a life, and you can’t take that away from them by implying they’ve sacrificed other lives in the process. .

which is exactly why the fact that one’s main competitors are co-ethnics is relevant and alone dismantles EGI.

No, at best it dismantles EGI as a direct mechanism for the evolution of ethnic favoritism; it does not dismantle EGI as a fitness enhancer for the individual’s total genome.

you’re just describing group selection. a certain group is increasing “its genotype” relative to all other groups of humanity.

A certain INDIVIDUAL is also increasing the frequency of genotypes similar to his own, relative to the average human.

you’re appealing to group selection here. you’re just saying that the strong selection within-group could be overcome by the effect at the group level. the problem is that the situations you’re talking about at the group level simply do not occur often enough.

It’s also individual selection, because it genetically benefits the INDIVIDUAL if more genes, genetic variants, and combination of variants, resemble his own.

Swank, do you accept that g is the “active” component for IQ and the most heritable? That the predictive validity of IQ tests comes from the g-factor? It seems also that non-g-loaded IQ gains don’t seem to translate into anything in the real world.

You can see all sorts of variation in IQ scores, primarily due to some form of measurement error. Measurement error can be random (e.g., the type that attenuates the heritability in trait studies) or non-random (e.g., IQ tests losing g-loadings). The Flynn effect is likely mostly due to this latter factor.

God, I hate when people talk about shit that they have no idea on. Don’t mind me if I make 100 replies in this thread, I hate misinformation, especially in a field that I know very well and am in myself (working with the obese and people who want to lose weight).

“It is 80% genetic[?]
That is why you have whole tribes in South America where not one person has ever been fat?”

This is literally retarded. In no paper that I’ve come across have I seen a researcher say that heritability is that high for the whole planet, it’s only in first world countries.

Moreover, hunter-gatherers don’t have our disease rate and obesity rate since they still eat a hunter-gatherer diet. I’ve talked about diseases of civilization a lot here, and they’re brought on my processed foods. This is why those two variables are low to nonexistent in those populations.

“In fact just the other day, I was at the home of someone who was so incredibly fat I thought “it must be genetic.” And then just as I was leaving his house, I noticed a huge empty box of pizza in the kitchen.”

I can tell you have no understanding of this research.

“Now I have no doubt that if that person has an identical twin raised apart, he too is extremely fat, and thus fatness technically has a high heritability, but what exactly is genetic here?”

It depends, is this in an obesogenic environment?

“So while obesity might technically be nearly 80% genetic, the statistic is misleading because it’s not directly genetic in the same was as height is.”

Dude, again, this is in first-world countries. Refer to the paper I showed you this morning.

BMI is an alright proxy for weight. Again: this is in first-world countries so these heritability estimates do not hold for the whole world.

“So while obesity might technically be nearly 80% genetic, the statistic is misleading because it’s not directly genetic in the same was as height is.”

I have tons of studies saved about obesity and I won’t bore you by linking you to all of them. However researchers do argue that height and weight both increased around the same time, so they say that obesity is a consequence of a rise in height as well.

“Of course I don’t deny obesity has some direct genetic component. Some people gain weight a lot easier than others and for some people, it’s virtually impossible to lose weight no matter how well they eat, though this is rare.”

Your second sentence is correct. Your third is horribly wrong. Diets have a 99 percent rate of failure. See this quote from Sandra Aamodt’s book Why Diets Make Us Fat:

“Leibel finds that metabolic suppression persists in dieters who have kept weight off for one to six years, so he scoffs at claims that the successful weight loss story disproves his ideas. “If you talk to people who’ve done it – not the studies, but people who actually manage to lose weight and keep it off – they’ll tell you what I’m telling you,” he says: that the only way to achieve this goal was to allow themselves to be hungry all the time while increasing their physical activity substantially. Indeed, his point is supported by data on the eating and exercise habits of people listed in the National Weight Control Registry, who have lost at least thirty pounds and kept it off for one year. A calorie calculator says that Dennis Asbury should have needed 2,100 calories to maintain his weight at 150 pounds, but instead he found that he needed to eat 400 to 500 calories less than that. Such metabolic suppression is the difference between being within the defended range and being below it. Many people blame others for eating too much or exercising too little, assuming incorrectly that both are under voluntary control, but it’s much harder to justify holding people responsible for diet-induced changes in the way the body burns energy.” (Aamodt, 2016, pg. 68)

And:

Like nearsightedness, environmental influences on weight also mostly affect the genetically vulnerable, although we understand the details of the process in only rare cases. Fitness gains on a standardized exercise program vary from one person to another largely because of differences in their genes (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224894619_Genetics_of_aerobic_and_anaerobic_performances). When identical twins, men in their early twenties, were fed an extra thousand calories per day for about three months, each pair showed similar weight gains (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9164270). In contrast, the gain varied across twin pairs, ranging from nine to twenty-nine pounds, even though the caloric imbalance was the same for everyone. An individual’s genes also influence weight loss. When another group of identical twins burned a thousand more calories per day through exercise while maintaining a stable food intake in an in-patient facility, their losses ranged from two to eighteen pounds and were even more similar within twin pairs than weight gain. (Aamodt, 2016 pg. 138)